Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19087449 | CAM-GUIDED TRANSFORMERS FOR AI-BASED PROTEIN AND DRUG DESIGN | March 2025 | September 2025 | Allow | 6 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 18479409 | PEPTIDE BASED VACCINE GENERATION SYSTEM WITH DUAL PROJECTION GENERATIVE ADVERSARIAL NETWORKS | October 2023 | August 2025 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18191477 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR MODELING PHASING EFFECTS IN SEQUENCING USING TERMINATION CHEMISTRY | March 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17711310 | PEPTIDE BASED VACCINE GENERATION SYSTEM WITH DUAL PROJECTION GENERATIVE ADVERSARIAL NETWORKS | April 2022 | August 2025 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17632078 | Method of Determining Risk for Chronic Stress and Stroke | February 2022 | March 2026 | Abandon | 49 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17486407 | BINDING AFFINITY PREDICTION USING NEURAL NETWORKS | September 2021 | October 2025 | Abandon | 48 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17441240 | METHOD FOR PREDICTING YIELD PERFORMANCE OF A CROP PLANT | September 2021 | August 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17438307 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DIRECTED FORMATION OF SIZE-CONTROLLED MULTI-CELLULAR STRUCTURES AND MEASUREMENT OF FORCES GENERATED BY THE SAME | September 2021 | January 2026 | Abandon | 52 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17466606 | BAMBAM: PARALLEL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HIGH-THROUGHPUT SEQUENCING DATA | September 2021 | March 2026 | Allow | 54 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17405686 | GENE EXPRESSION PANEL FOR PROGNOSIS OF PROSTATE CANCER RECURRENCE | August 2021 | October 2025 | Abandon | 50 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17399135 | DISPLAY-PROCESSING DEVICE FOR MASS SPECTROMETRY DATA | August 2021 | December 2025 | Abandon | 52 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17395161 | METHODS OF ASSESSING BREAST CANCER USING MACHINE LEARNING SYSTEMS | August 2021 | October 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17416903 | METHOD OF PREDICTING FOR BENEFIT FROM IMMUNE CHECKPOINT INHIBITION THERAPY | June 2021 | March 2026 | Allow | 57 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17312168 | Deep Basecaller for Sanger Sequencing | June 2021 | August 2025 | Abandon | 50 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17311195 | METHOD FOR DETECTING THE PRESENCE, IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION IN A BLOOD SAMPLE OF ANTICOAGULANTS WHICH ARE BLOOD COAGULATION ENZYMES INHIBITORS, AND MEANS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF | June 2021 | July 2025 | Allow | 49 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17333287 | EXPERIMENT AND MACHINE-LEARNING TECHNIQUES TO IDENTIFY AND GENERATE HIGH AFFINITY BINDERS | May 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17333272 | EXPERIMENT AND MACHINE-LEARNING TECHNIQUES TO IDENTIFY AND GENERATE HIGH AFFINITY BINDERS | May 2021 | February 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17332735 | IMMUNOGENIC RESPONSE PREDICTION BASED ON MAJOR HISTOCOMPATIBILITY COMPLEX (MHC) DATA | May 2021 | September 2025 | Allow | 52 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17332902 | ANCESTRY-SPECIFIC GENETIC RISK SCORES | May 2021 | July 2025 | Abandon | 50 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17244774 | MACHINE LEARNING ACCELERATED PROTEIN ENGINEERING THROUGH FITNESS PREDICTION | April 2021 | January 2026 | Allow | 57 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17286066 | Improved Ordered Assembly of Multiple DNA Fragments | April 2021 | May 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17283829 | ENRICHMENT OF TRAITS AND ASSOCIATION WITH POPULATION DEMOGRAPHY | April 2021 | June 2025 | Abandon | 50 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17279946 | METHOD FOR SELECTING NEOEPITOPES | March 2021 | September 2025 | Allow | 54 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16958671 | WHOLE GENOME SGRNA LIBRARY CONSTRUCTING SYSTEM AND APPLICATION THEREOF | March 2021 | April 2025 | Abandon | 58 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17197166 | PEPTIDE-BASED VACCINE GENERATION SYSTEM | March 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17268732 | METHODS, AND SYSTEMS TO DETECT TRANSPLANT REJECTION | February 2021 | January 2026 | Allow | 59 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17163186 | MACHINE LEARNING MODELS FOR DETECTING OUTLIERS AND ERRONEOUS SENSOR USE CONDITIONS AND CORRECTING, BLANKING, OR TERMINATING GLUCOSE SENSORS | January 2021 | December 2025 | Allow | 58 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16647231 | Diagnostic and Treatment of Chronic Pathologies Such as Lyme Disease | March 2020 | August 2025 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16644565 | MASS SPECTROMETRY DISTINGUISHABLE SYNTHETIC COMPOUNDS, LIBRARIES, AND METHODS THEREOF | March 2020 | March 2025 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15914729 | PROTEIN ANALYTE DETECTION BY ANALIZING TIME-DEPENDENT SIGNALS FROM TRANSIENT BINDING EVENTS OF LABELED LOW-AFFINITY PROBES | March 2018 | July 2025 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 2 | No | 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 BICKHAM, DAWN MARIE works in Art Unit 1685 and has examined 25 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 44.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 52 months.
Examiner BICKHAM, DAWN MARIE's allowance rate of 44.0% places them in the 9% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by BICKHAM, DAWN MARIE receive 1.84 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 43% 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 BICKHAM, DAWN MARIE is 52 months. This places the examiner in the 3% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +87.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BICKHAM, DAWN MARIE. 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, 23.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 31% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 80.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 96% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 98% 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 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.