Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18905687 | DETECTING MUTATIONS AND PLOIDY IN CHROMOSOMAL SEGMENTS | October 2024 | March 2026 | Abandon | 17 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18905714 | DETECTING MUTATIONS AND PLOIDY IN CHROMOSOMAL SEGMENTS | October 2024 | March 2026 | Abandon | 17 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18429345 | GENERATIVE COMPUTATIONAL PREDICTIVE MODEL FOR SOFT TISSUE REPAIR PLANNING | January 2024 | September 2025 | Allow | 20 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18091965 | DEEP LEARNING MODEL PREDICTION METHOD OF DRUG IC50 BASED ON MOLECULAR STRUCTURE AND GENE EXPRESSION | December 2022 | October 2024 | Abandon | 22 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17842400 | COMBINATION OF EXISTING DRUGS TO REPAIR THE ACTION POTENTIALS OF CELLS | June 2022 | July 2025 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17449022 | PREDICTION OF INTERFERENCE WITH HOST IMMUNE RESPONSE SYSTEM BASED ON PATHOGEN FEATURES | September 2021 | December 2024 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17395566 | Mitochondrial DNA Quality Control | August 2021 | July 2024 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17381917 | VARIANT PATHOGENICITY SCORING AND CLASSIFICATION AND USES THEREOF | July 2021 | May 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17233029 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR VISUALIZING ADAPTIVE IMMUNE CELL CLONOTYPING DATA | April 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17216555 | Cancer Classification with Synthetic Training Samples | March 2021 | July 2025 | Abandon | 52 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17153164 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ALIGNMENT-BASED PRE-TRAINING OF PROTEIN PREDICTION MODELS | January 2021 | December 2024 | Abandon | 47 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17257208 | CODON OPTIMIZATION | December 2020 | May 2025 | Abandon | 53 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16972535 | TECHNOLOGY ADAPTED TO ENABLE IMPROVED COLLECTION OF INVOLUNTARY EYELlD MOVEMENT PARAMETERS, INCLUDING COLLECTION OF EYELlD MOVEMENT PARAMETERS TO SUPPORT ANALYSIS OF NEUROLOGICAL FACTORS | December 2020 | January 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17107662 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DNA DATA STORAGE | November 2020 | February 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16951703 | COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR SHARED NEO-EPITOPE VACCINES | November 2020 | August 2025 | Abandon | 57 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17066863 | CANCER CLASSIFICATION WITH TISSUE OF ORIGIN THRESHOLDING | October 2020 | August 2025 | Abandon | 58 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17065548 | ALTERING PROTEIN-LIGAND STRUCTURE ACCORDING TO PROTEIN-LIGAND BINDING AFFINITY | October 2020 | January 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16948915 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING SEQUENCE VARIATION | October 2020 | November 2024 | Abandon | 49 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17064568 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATED CLASSIFICATION OF SUBTYPING OF LEUKEMIA CELLS | October 2020 | August 2025 | Abandon | 59 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17039647 | Command Center | September 2020 | September 2024 | Allow | 47 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17042765 | BIOMARKER ANALYSIS FOR HIGH-THROUGHPUT DIAGNOSTIC MULTIPLEX DATA | September 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 55 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17027148 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR IDENTIFYING METHYLATION BIOMARKERS | September 2020 | September 2025 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16970327 | URINE MARKERS AND FORMULA FOR DIAGNOSING OVERACTIVE BLADDER DISORDER | August 2020 | September 2024 | Allow | 49 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16811919 | SEQUENCE-GRAPH BASED TOOL FOR DETERMINING VARIATION IN SHORT TANDEM REPEAT REGIONS | March 2020 | March 2025 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16623562 | SEQUENCE-DETECTION SYSTEM | December 2019 | February 2025 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16562412 | Method for discovery of alternative antigen specific antibody variants | September 2019 | March 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16485203 | Algorithms and Methods for Assessing Late Clinical Endpoints in Prostate Cancer | August 2019 | March 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16467228 | ONCOGENIC SPLICE VARIANT DETERMINATION | June 2019 | October 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16342497 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OUTLIER SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT | April 2019 | October 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16363926 | METHOD OF STORING DATA IN POLYMER | March 2019 | June 2025 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16250445 | Molecule-Based Equation Oriented Reactor Simulation System And Its Model Reduction | January 2019 | July 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16208290 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETERMINING SOMATIC MUTATION CLONALITY | December 2018 | May 2025 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16089019 | Biomarker Database Generation and Use | September 2018 | November 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BAILEY, STEVEN WILLIAM.
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, 50.0% 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 BAILEY, STEVEN WILLIAM works in Art Unit 1687 and has examined 28 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 28.6%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 58 months.
Examiner BAILEY, STEVEN WILLIAM's allowance rate of 28.6% places them in the 4% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by BAILEY, STEVEN WILLIAM receive 3.32 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 92% 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 BAILEY, STEVEN WILLIAM is 58 months. This places the examiner in the 1% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +34.8% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BAILEY, STEVEN WILLIAM. This interview benefit is in the 82% 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, 8.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 4% 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 11.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 12% 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, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 90% 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 4% 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.