Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17051796 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CLASSIFYING SUBJECTS BASED ON TIME SERIES PHENOTYPIC DATA | October 2020 | May 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17061590 | METHODS FOR PRODUCING BIOTHERAPEUTICS WITH INCREASED STABILITY BY SEQUENCE OPTIMIZATION | October 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 56 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17041620 | ACTIVE LEARNING MODEL VALIDATION | September 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 53 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16587909 | DEEP LEARNING PARTICLE CLASSIFICATION PLATFORM | September 2019 | March 2025 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16578242 | INFORMATION PROVISION METHOD, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, INFORMATION TERMINAL, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | September 2019 | December 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16575280 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CELLULAR ANALYSIS USING NUCLEIC ACID SEQUENCING | September 2019 | April 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 16495015 | GENOMIC DATA ANALYSIS SYSTEM AND METHOD | September 2019 | June 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16458589 | CANCER CLASSIFIER MODELS, MACHINE LEARNING SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF USE | July 2019 | February 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16397003 | TARGET MOLECULE-LIGAND BINDING MODE PREDICTION COMBINING DEEP LEARNING-BASED INFORMATICS WITH MOLECULAR DOCKING | April 2019 | April 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16386696 | BOLUS CALCULATOR WITH PROBABILISTIC CARBOHYDRATE MEASUREMENTS | April 2019 | December 2024 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16383349 | METHODS FOR DETECTING AND SUPPRESSING ALIGNMENT ERRORS CAUSED BY FUSION EVENTS | April 2019 | April 2025 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16271980 | METHODS OF FILTERING SEQUENCED MICROBIOME SAMPLES | February 2019 | January 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 16271571 | Self-Assembling Protein Nanostructures | February 2019 | February 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16257000 | COORDINATED IN VITRO AND IN SILICO BASED APPROACH FOR PREDICTING NANOMATERIAL BIODISTRIBUTION | January 2019 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner PULLIAM, JOSEPH CONSTANTINE.
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 PULLIAM, JOSEPH CONSTANTINE works in Art Unit 1687 and has examined 14 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 10000 months.
Examiner PULLIAM, JOSEPH CONSTANTINE'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 PULLIAM, JOSEPH CONSTANTINE receive 3.43 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 PULLIAM, JOSEPH CONSTANTINE 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 +28.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by PULLIAM, JOSEPH CONSTANTINE. This interview benefit is in the 75% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 8.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 5% 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 16.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 20% 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.
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 50.0% of allowed cases (in the 98% 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.