Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16966733 | METHOD, DEVICE AND PROGRAM FOR DETERMINING AT LEAST ONE DISTRIBUTION RATIO REPRESENTING CARRYING OUT A GIVEN PROCESS | July 2020 | July 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16767967 | METHODS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF DISSOCIATION MELT CURVE DATA | May 2020 | December 2023 | Abandon | 43 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16851949 | STATISTICAL AI FOR ADVANCED DEEP LEARNING AND PROBABILISTIC PROGRAMING IN THE BIOSCIENCES | April 2020 | August 2024 | Abandon | 52 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16618733 | IDENTIFICATION OF ENZYME-SUBSTRATES ASSOCIATIONS | December 2019 | April 2024 | Abandon | 53 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16598319 | GENOME ASSEMBLY METHOD, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM, AND GENOME ASSEMBLY DEVICE | October 2019 | April 2024 | Abandon | 54 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16551712 | PARALLELIZABLE SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS | August 2019 | June 2024 | Allow | 58 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16486086 | Data Processing and Classification for Determining a Likelihood Score for Immune-Related Adverse Events | August 2019 | March 2024 | Abandon | 55 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16533857 | AUTOMATED DIFFERENTIAL EXPRESSION ANALYSIS OF RNA SEQUENCING DATA | August 2019 | May 2023 | Abandon | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16282268 | HYPERPARAMETER TUNING TO ENHANCE PREDICTIONS | February 2019 | February 2023 | Abandon | 48 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 15995518 | Methods Of Associating Genetic Variants With A Clinical Outcome In Patients Suffering From Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treated With Anti-VEGF | June 2018 | September 2022 | Allow | 51 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner KRIANGCHAIVECH, KETTIP works in Art Unit 1672 and has examined 10 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 20.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 52 months.
Examiner KRIANGCHAIVECH, KETTIP's allowance rate of 20.0% places them in the 3% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by KRIANGCHAIVECH, KETTIP receive 1.10 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 10% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by KRIANGCHAIVECH, KETTIP is 52 months. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +100.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KRIANGCHAIVECH, KETTIP. This interview benefit is in the 100% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 96% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.
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, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 3% 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 3% 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.