Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18638701 | SCREENING METHOD FOR DROUGHT-RESISTANT GERMPLASM OF OPHIOPOGON JAPONICUS | April 2024 | May 2025 | Allow | 13 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18513357 | FLOW CYTOMETRY IMMUNOPROFILING OF PERIPHERAL BLOOD | November 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 24 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18461736 | IMMUNOPHENOTYPING METHOD FOR SMALL-CELL LUNG CANCER ESTABLISHED BASED ON MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANALYSES | September 2023 | March 2025 | Abandon | 18 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17459012 | MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | August 2021 | February 2026 | Abandon | 54 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17417007 | FAST AND STABLE GENOMIC BREEDING VALUE EVALUATING METHOD FOR ANIMAL INDIVIDUALS | June 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17232017 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ANALYZING AND AGGREGATING OPEN CHROMATIN SIGNATURES AT SINGLE CELL RESOLUTION | April 2021 | January 2026 | Abandon | 57 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17154683 | EVALUATING THE ROBUSTNESS AND TRANSFERABILITY OF PREDICTIVE SIGNATURES ACROSS MOLECULAR BIOMARKER DATASETS | January 2021 | February 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17149721 | ANCESTRY INFERENCE BASED ON CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORK | January 2021 | October 2025 | Abandon | 57 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17053347 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DERIVING NEW DRUG CANDIDATE SUBSTANCE | November 2020 | December 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17060862 | SAMPLING UNIQUE MOLECULAR STRUCTURES FROM AUTOENCODERS | October 2020 | November 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17041573 | MOLECULAR DESIGN USING REINFORCEMENT LEARNING | September 2020 | December 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17041360 | ARTIFICIAL NEUTRAL NETWORK DEEP LEARNING-BASED METHOD, APPARATUS, LEARNING STRATEGY, AND SYSTEM FOR ANALYTE ANALYSIS | September 2020 | August 2025 | Abandon | 59 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17026353 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MATCHING PHENOTYPE DESCRIPTIONS AND PATHOGENIC VARIANTS | September 2020 | December 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17023185 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DIAGNOSING A DISEASE CONDITION USING ON-TARGET AND OFF-TARGET SEQUENCING DATA | September 2020 | January 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17018709 | TECHNIQUES FOR IMPROVING PROCESSING OF BIOINFORMATICS INFORMATION TO DECREASE PROCESSING TIME | September 2020 | November 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17003661 | SEARCH ENGINE FOR CONCATENATING AND SEARCHING COMBINATIONS OF DATA FILES | August 2020 | July 2025 | Abandon | 59 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16988965 | TRAIT PREDICTION COORDINATION FOR GENOMIC APPLICATION ENVIRONMENT | August 2020 | December 2025 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16962313 | DEEP LEARNING-BASED QUICK AND PRECISE HIGH-THROUGHPUT DRUG SCREENING SYSTEM | July 2020 | October 2024 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16960735 | EXTRACELLULAR FLUID VOLUME CALCULATOR AND METHOD FOR CALCULATING EXTRACELLULAR FLUID VOLUME | July 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 56 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16624661 | Method and Apparatus for Performing a Normalization in the Context of Sequencing Analysis | April 2020 | November 2024 | Abandon | 59 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16845278 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SEQUENCE CALLING | April 2020 | October 2024 | Abandon | 54 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16633910 | CODON OPTIMIZATION METHOD BASED ON IMMUNE ALGORITHM | January 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 59 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16631405 | DNA-BASED DATA STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL | January 2020 | September 2025 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16679530 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR AUTOMATED SEQUENCE DETERMINATION USING PATTERN-DIRECTED ALIGNED PATTERN CLUSTERING | November 2019 | January 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16567962 | ADMIXED SYNTHETIC REFERENCE PANEL | September 2019 | January 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16347104 | AUTOMATED COLLECTION OF A SPECIFIED NUMBER OF CELLS | May 2019 | August 2022 | Allow | 39 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16394517 | Methods and Systems for Determining the Risk of Developing Ovarian Cancer | April 2019 | December 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16372239 | SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR MACHINE LEARNING FOR DRUG DESIGN AND DISCOVERY | April 2019 | September 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 16359385 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ANALYSIS OF CHROMATIN INTERACTION DATA | March 2019 | September 2024 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16237959 | HIGH THROUGHPUT METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ANALYZING THE EFFECTS OF AGENTS ON PLANARIA | January 2019 | March 2025 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16057040 | ENHANCED APPLICATIONS OF MOLECULAR LIBRARIES BASED ON STRUCTURE/FUNCTION ANALYSIS | August 2018 | October 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 16042122 | DATA GENERATION APPARATUS, BIOLOGICAL DATA MEASUREMENT SYSTEM, CLASSIFIER GENERATION APPARATUS, DATA GENERATION METHOD, CLASSIFIER GENERATION METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | July 2018 | January 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15773789 | METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE ORIGIN OF DNA MOLECULES | May 2018 | January 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KRIANGCHAIVECH, KETTIP.
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, 100.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner KRIANGCHAIVECH, KETTIP works in Art Unit 1686 and has examined 30 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 16.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 10000 months.
Examiner KRIANGCHAIVECH, KETTIP's allowance rate of 16.7% places them in the 2% 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 3.17 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 90% 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 KRIANGCHAIVECH, KETTIP 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 +27.8% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KRIANGCHAIVECH, KETTIP. This interview benefit is in the 75% 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, 5.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 2% 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 5.9% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 6% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 87% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 71% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.
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.