Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17250206 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM | December 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16752467 | ANALYSIS SYSTEM, ANALYSIS METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | January 2020 | October 2024 | Abandon | 57 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16750249 | Structure that Correlates and Separates with Rotation of a Three-Dimensional Element | January 2020 | May 2023 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 2 | Yes | No |
| 16721619 | CELL-FREE DNA END CHARACTERISTICS | December 2019 | September 2023 | Allow | 45 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16698129 | PREDICTING DEVICE, PREDICTING METHOD, PREDICTING PROGRAM, LEARNING MODEL INPUT DATA GENERATING DEVICE, AND LEARNING MODEL INPUT DATA GENERATING PROGRAM | November 2019 | June 2025 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16606325 | METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING COMPOUNDS | October 2019 | December 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16578249 | INFORMATION PROVISION METHOD, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, INFORMATION TERMINAL, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | September 2019 | January 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16552709 | ANALYSIS METHOD, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, GENE ANALYSIS SYSTEM AND NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUM | August 2019 | February 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 16537133 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IMPROVING AMPLICON SEQUENCING BASED TAXONOMIC RESOLUTION OF MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES | August 2019 | November 2024 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16096750 | MUTATIONAL SIGNATURES IN CANCER | October 2018 | May 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16019315 | DETECTING CROSS-CONTAMINATION IN SEQUENCING DATA | June 2018 | December 2024 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15978468 | COMPUTER-ASSISTED MODELING FOR TREATMENT DESIGN | May 2018 | November 2024 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15747279 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PRIORITIZING VARIANTS OF UNKNOWN SIGNIFICANCE | January 2018 | August 2024 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15834660 | PATIENT DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT BASED ON GENOMIC TENSOR MOTIFS | December 2017 | February 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15793394 | TRIE-BASED POLYPLOID PHASING | October 2017 | March 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15518257 | CROSS PLATFORM TRANSFORMATION OF GENE EXPRESSION DATA | April 2017 | January 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MINCHELLA, KAITLYN L.
With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.
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.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner MINCHELLA, KAITLYN L works in Art Unit 1685 and has examined 16 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 43.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 10000 months.
Examiner MINCHELLA, KAITLYN L's allowance rate of 43.8% places them in the 10% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by MINCHELLA, KAITLYN L receive 4.50 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 97% 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 MINCHELLA, KAITLYN L is 10000 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 +58.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MINCHELLA, KAITLYN L. This interview benefit is in the 96% 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, 10.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 6% 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 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 2% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 44% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.
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 28.6% of allowed cases (in the 96% 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.