Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17031510 | PROCESS WITH INTEGRATED RECYCLE FOR MAKING ETHYLENE GLYCOL AND/OR PROPYLENE GLYCOL FROM ALDOSE- AND/OR KETOSE- YIELDING CARBOHYDRATES | September 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 56 | 6 | 1 | No | No |
| 16608441 | IMINO-UREA DERIVATIVES | November 2019 | February 2022 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16547134 | PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF CHIRAL PYROLLIDINE-2-YL- METHANOL DERIVATIVES | August 2019 | February 2022 | Abandon | 30 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16048611 | CATECHOL O-METHYLTRANSFERASE ACTIVITY INHIBITING COMPOUNDS | July 2018 | June 2019 | Abandon | 11 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15751624 | METHOD FOR PREPARATION OF 1-METHYL-3-(TRIFLUOROMETHYL)-1H-PYRAZOL-5-OL | February 2018 | December 2018 | Allow | 10 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15872776 | THERAPEUTIC COMPOUNDS | January 2018 | September 2019 | Abandon | 20 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 15744448 | INDAZOLE AND AZAINDAZOLE COMPOUNDS AS IRAK-4 INHIBITORS | January 2018 | July 2019 | Abandon | 18 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 15413965 | Disubstituted Octahydropyrrolo[3,4-C]Pyrroles As Orexin Receptor Modulators | January 2017 | October 2019 | Abandon | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13603150 | Dopamine Transporter Inhibitors for Use in Treatment of Movement Disorders and Other CNS Indications | September 2012 | February 2014 | Abandon | 17 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13550839 | System for Automated, On-Site and Remote Management of Restroom Ultra High Efficiency-Appliances and Interoperable Components Thereof | July 2012 | December 2016 | Abandon | 53 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13521156 | Phosphorylation Reagent | July 2012 | March 2014 | Abandon | 20 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13515064 | Method for Producing Triazolinthione Derivatives and Intermediates Thereof | June 2012 | January 2014 | Abandon | 20 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 13471731 | COMPOUNDS | May 2012 | February 2014 | Abandon | 21 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13321231 | PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF OLMESARTAN MEDOXOMIL | April 2012 | February 2014 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13388091 | POLYMORPHIC FORM OF OLMESARTAN MEDOXOMIL | April 2012 | February 2014 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13337216 | SUBSTITUTED ARYLIMIDAZOLONE AND TRIAZOLONE AS INHIBITORS OF VASOPRESSIN RECEPTORS | December 2011 | March 2014 | Abandon | 27 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13334770 | 3'-[(2Z)-[1-(3,4-DIMETHYLPHENYL)-1,5-DIHYDRO-3-METHYL-5-OXO-4H-PYRAZOL-4-YLIDENE]HYDRAZINO]-2'-HYDROXY-[1,1'-BIPHENYL]-3-CARBOXYLIC ACID bis-(MONOETHANOLAMINE) | December 2011 | January 2014 | Abandon | 25 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13141663 | TARGETING PRODRUGS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR THE TREATMENT OF GASTROINTESTINAL DISEASES | October 2011 | May 2013 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13232020 | New Process | September 2011 | May 2013 | Abandon | 20 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13177268 | Inhibitors of Fibroblast Activation Protein Alpha | July 2011 | January 2014 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 13135020 | Ultraviolet light absorbing compounds based on benzyl substituted 2-(2- hydroxyphenyl) benzotriazoles | June 2011 | February 2014 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13119941 | COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS COMPRISING IMIDAZOLE AND TRIAZOLE DERIVATIVES | June 2011 | February 2014 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12921961 | Catalytic Process for Asymmetric Hydrogenation | March 2011 | January 2014 | Abandon | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13056648 | CRYSTALLINE FORMS OF THIAZOLIDINEDIONE COMPOUND AND ITS MANUFACTURING METHOD | February 2011 | March 2014 | Abandon | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12990059 | MODULATORS OF DOPAMINE NEUROTRANSMISSION | December 2010 | April 2013 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12999505 | INHIBITORS OF AKT ACTIVITY | December 2010 | January 2014 | Abandon | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12915605 | Hepatitis C Virus Inhibitors | October 2010 | December 2013 | Abandon | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12849147 | THROMBOPOIETIN MIMETICS | August 2010 | February 2013 | Abandon | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12676035 | GAMMA SECRETASE MODULATORS | July 2010 | March 2014 | Abandon | 48 | 2 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 12441932 | PYRROLINONE COMPOUNDS AS INHIBITORS OF BACTERIAL PEPTIDYL TRNA HYDROLASE AND USES THEREOF | January 2010 | April 2013 | Abandon | 49 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 12663316 | A NEW PEPTIDE DEFORMYLASE INHIBITOR COMPOUND AND MANUFACTURING PROCESS THEREOF | December 2009 | June 2013 | Abandon | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12203487 | DEUTERIUM-ENRICHED RUFINAMIDE | September 2008 | February 2011 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MCKANE, JOSEPH K.
Filing a Notice of Appeal can sometimes lead to allowance even before the appeal is fully briefed or decided by the PTAB. This occurs when the examiner or their supervisor reconsiders the rejection during the mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) after the appeal is filed.
In this dataset, 0.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is less effective here than in most other areas.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner MCKANE, JOSEPH K works in Art Unit 1626 and has examined 32 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 3.1%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 29 months.
Examiner MCKANE, JOSEPH K's allowance rate of 3.1% places them in the 1% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by MCKANE, JOSEPH K receive 1.66 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 30% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by MCKANE, JOSEPH K is 29 months. This places the examiner in the 62% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -3.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MCKANE, JOSEPH K. This interview benefit is in the 8% percentile among all examiners. Note: Interviews show limited statistical benefit with this examiner compared to others, though they may still be valuable for clarifying issues.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show lower effectiveness with this examiner compared to others. Consider whether a continuation application might be more strategic, especially if you need to add new matter or significantly broaden claims.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments compared to other examiners. You should generally plan to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry. Per MPEP § 714.12, primary examiners have discretion in entering after-final amendments, and this examiner exercises that discretion conservatively.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 75.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 80% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 1% percentile). This examiner rarely makes examiner's amendments compared to other examiners. You should expect to make all necessary claim amendments yourself through formal amendment practice.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 1% percentile). This examiner rarely issues Quayle actions compared to other examiners. Allowances typically come directly without a separate action for formal matters.
Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:
Not Legal Advice: The information provided in this report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with a qualified patent attorney or agent for advice specific to your situation.
No Guarantees: We do not provide any guarantees as to the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the statistics presented above. Patent prosecution statistics are derived from publicly available USPTO data and are subject to data quality limitations, processing errors, and changes in USPTO practices over time.
Limitation of Liability: Under no circumstances will IronCrow AI be liable for any outcome, decision, or action resulting from your reliance on the statistics, analysis, or recommendations presented in this report. Past prosecution patterns do not guarantee future results.
Use at Your Own Risk: While we strive to provide accurate and useful prosecution statistics, you should independently verify any information that is material to your prosecution strategy and use your professional judgment in all patent prosecution matters.