Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18814374 | MODELING PHYSICAL SYSTEMS WITH LARGE LANGUAGE MACHINE-LEARNED MODELS | August 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18639146 | ACTIVE LEARNING FOR DISCOVERING PAIRWISE INTERACTIONS VIA REPRESENTATION LEARNING | April 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 21 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18620367 | METHODS OF DETECTING CANCER | March 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 23 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18598694 | SPACIO-TEMPORAL DETERMINATION OF POLYPEPTIDE STRUCTURE | March 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 23 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 18523709 | System of Predicting Sensitivity of Klebsiella against Cefoxitin and Method | November 2023 | May 2025 | Abandon | 18 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18460671 | GENOME GRAPH ANALYSIS METHOD, DEVICE AND MEDIUM BASED ON IN-MEMORY COMPUTING | September 2023 | February 2025 | Abandon | 18 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17437063 | DIAGNOSIS OF NON-ALCOHOLIC STEATOHEPATITIS | September 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17426058 | METHOD OF DIAGNOSING OVERACTIVE BLADDER DISORDER | July 2021 | June 2025 | Allow | 47 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17326107 | PROTEIN STRUCTURE PREDICTION SYSTEM | May 2021 | February 2026 | Abandon | 57 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17295393 | USE OF NATURAL-ABUNDANCE STABLE ISOTOPES AND DNA GENOTYPING FOR IDENTIFYING BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS | May 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17288684 | GENOMIC VARIANTS IN IG GENE REGIONS AND USES OF SAME | April 2021 | August 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17222970 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING AND TREATING NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASE | April 2021 | June 2025 | Abandon | 50 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17102508 | PROGRAM FOR OPERATING CELL CULTURE SUPPORT APPARATUS, CELL CULTURE SUPPORT APPARATUS, AND METHOD FOR OPERATING CELL CULTURE SUPPORT APPARATUS | November 2020 | January 2026 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 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 |
| 16975989 | DETERMINING PROTEIN STRUCTURE AND PROPERTIES BASED ON SEQUENCE | August 2020 | February 2026 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16995853 | GENERATING ORGANIC SYNTHESIS PROCEDURES FROM SIMPLIFIED MOLECULAR-INPUT LINE-ENTRY SYSTEM REACTION | August 2020 | January 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16925152 | REAL-TIME NEURAL SPIKE DETECTION | July 2020 | March 2026 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16698678 | METHODS AND PROCESSES FOR NON-INVASIVE ASSESSMENT OF GENETIC VARIATIONS | November 2019 | March 2026 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16587909 | DEEP LEARNING PARTICLE CLASSIFICATION PLATFORM | September 2019 | March 2025 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16585679 | DESIGNING AND FOLDING STRUCTURAL PROTEINS FROM THE PRIMARY AMINO ACID SEQUENCE | September 2019 | January 2026 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 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 |
| 16574108 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DISSECTING HETEROGENEOUS CELL POPULATIONS | September 2019 | February 2026 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16495015 | GENOMIC DATA ANALYSIS SYSTEM AND METHOD | September 2019 | June 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16477126 | METHOD FOR NON-INVASIVE PRENATAL SCREENING FOR ANEUPLOIDY | July 2019 | February 2026 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16458589 | CANCER CLASSIFIER MODELS, MACHINE LEARNING SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF USE | July 2019 | February 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16467930 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETERMINING PARALOGS | June 2019 | December 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 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 |
| 16352739 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SELECTING, MANAGING, AND ANALYZING DATA OF HIGH DIMENSIONALITY | March 2019 | December 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | 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.
With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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.
✓ Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner PULLIAM, JOSEPH CONSTANTINE works in Art Unit 1687 and has examined 30 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 43.3%, 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 43.3% places them in the 8% 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 93% 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 +54.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by PULLIAM, JOSEPH CONSTANTINE. This interview benefit is in the 95% 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, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 13% 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 16.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 17% 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 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 14% 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, 133.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 96% 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 15.4% of allowed cases (in the 92% 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.