Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18617448 | METHODS FOR DETECTING NUCLEIC ACID VARIANTS | March 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 15 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18595176 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PREDICTING RESPONSE TO ANTI-TNF THERAPIES | March 2024 | January 2025 | Abandon | 10 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18269902 | METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING SPECIES OF EUKARYOTE ON BASIS OF WHOLE GENOME ANALYSIS, AND USE THEREOF | February 2024 | April 2025 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18492794 | RAPID, COMPREHENSIVE AND SENSITIVE METHOD FOR NEOANTIGEN SCREENING FROM RECURRENT CANCER MUTATIONS | October 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 16 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17377804 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING POTENTIAL DRUG COMPOSITIONS FOR TARGET DISEASE | July 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17226580 | METHODS AND PROCESSES FOR NON-INVASIVE ESTIMATION OF FETAL FRACTION | April 2021 | April 2025 | Allow | 48 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17225991 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN MICROBIAL STRAINS AND PHENOTYPIC FEATURES | April 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17280804 | Method and Apparatus For Analysing a Sample | March 2021 | December 2024 | Abandon | 44 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17199391 | INCREMENTAL SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF NUCLEIC ACID SEQUENCES | March 2021 | May 2025 | Allow | 50 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17253833 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR ASSESSING THE RISK OF GLAUCOMA | December 2020 | February 2025 | Allow | 49 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17051912 | METHODS AND TEST KITS FOR DETERMINING MALE FERTILITY STATUS | October 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 52 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17075434 | Systems and Methods for Designing Vaccines | October 2020 | March 2025 | Allow | 53 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17071774 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR POLYPROPYLENE AND POLYPROPYLENE ARTICLE PRODUCTION MODELING USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ALGORITHMS | October 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17068371 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENGINEERING ENZYMES USING IDENTIFIED ENERGY TRANSFER NETWORKS | October 2020 | February 2025 | Allow | 52 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17046371 | UP-SAMPLING OF SIGNALS BY ANALYTIC PHASE PROJECTION | October 2020 | May 2025 | Allow | 55 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16978891 | HIGHLY MULTIPLEXED PHYLOGENETIC IMAGING OF MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES | September 2020 | May 2025 | Allow | 56 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16961120 | Processes for Genetic and Clinical Data Evaluation and Classification of Complex Human Traits | July 2020 | April 2025 | Allow | 57 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16956243 | A METHOD OF DETERMINING THE EFFECT OF MOLECULAR SUPPLEMENTS ON THE GUT MICROBIOME | June 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16883314 | STRUCTURE SEARCH APPARATUS, METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | May 2020 | February 2025 | Abandon | 57 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16762619 | STRUCTURAL VARIANT ANALYSIS | May 2020 | May 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16815366 | TECHNIQUES FOR DETERMINING ACID-BASE HOMEOSTASIS | March 2020 | December 2024 | Allow | 57 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16637975 | MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR STRATIFYING AND TREATING CANCERS | February 2020 | March 2025 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16738669 | FISH FARM MATERIAL HANDLING | January 2020 | January 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16701070 | PROTEIN STRUCTURE PREDICTION USING GEOMETRIC ATTENTION NEURAL NETWORKS | December 2019 | March 2025 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16664265 | METHODS AND PROCESSES FOR NON-INVASIVE ASSESSMENT OF GENETIC VARIATIONS | October 2019 | June 2025 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16654349 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR COMPARING PROTEINS IN THREE DIMENSIONS | October 2019 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 16562183 | REVERSE CONCATENATION OF ERROR-CORRECTING CODES IN DNA DATA STORAGE | September 2019 | November 2024 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16368488 | METHOD FOR DESIGNING PRIMERS FOR MULTIPLEX PCR | March 2019 | December 2024 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16191142 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING MICROSATELLITE INSTABILITY | November 2018 | July 2024 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KALLAL, ROBERT JAMES.
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 KALLAL, ROBERT JAMES works in Art Unit 1685 and has examined 27 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 66.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 56 months.
Examiner KALLAL, ROBERT JAMES's allowance rate of 66.7% places them in the 20% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by KALLAL, ROBERT JAMES receive 2.78 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 91% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues more office actions than most examiners, which may indicate thorough examination or difficulty in reaching agreement with applicants.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by KALLAL, ROBERT JAMES is 56 months. This places the examiner in the 0% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +59.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KALLAL, ROBERT JAMES. This interview benefit is in the 97% 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, 28.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 43% 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 40.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 53% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 1% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 83% 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 11.1% of allowed cases (in the 89% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.
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.