Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16953521 | CYANOCARBON COMPOSITIONS | November 2020 | September 2024 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16760608 | ENVIRONMENTALLY COMPATIBLE DETERGENTS FOR INACTIVATION OF LIPID-ENVELOPED VIRUSES | April 2020 | November 2024 | Allow | 55 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16754053 | NOVEL GLUTAMINE ANTAGONISTS AND USES THEREOF | April 2020 | August 2024 | Allow | 53 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16825724 | ARAMID AMPHIPHILE SELF-ASSEMBLED NANOSTRUCTURES | March 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 57 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 13619774 | FORMULATIONS OF CANFOSFAMIDE AND THEIR PREPARATION | September 2012 | December 2013 | Allow | 15 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13561039 | FUNCTIONALIZED BIODEGRADABLE TRICLOSAN MONOMERS AND OLIGOMERS FOR CONTROLLED RELEASE | July 2012 | February 2013 | Allow | 6 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 13555023 | NOVEL BIS(FORMYLPHENYL) COMPOUND AND NOVEL POLYNUCLEAR POLYPHENOL COMPOUND DERIVED FROM THE SAME | July 2012 | June 2013 | Allow | 11 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13442401 | PROCESS FOR PREPARING ISOCYANATES | April 2012 | February 2014 | Allow | 23 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13358729 | PHENOXY SUBSTITUTED PHENYLAMIDINE DERIVATIVES AND THEIR USE AS FUNGICIDES | January 2012 | January 2013 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 13243592 | FUNCTIONALIZED BIODEGRADABLE TRICLOSAN MONOMERS AND OLIGOMERS FOR CONTROLLED RELEASE | September 2011 | May 2012 | Allow | 7 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 13058338 | FLUORIDATION OF IODONIUM SALTS | February 2011 | February 2013 | Allow | 24 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12936608 | BIS-AROMATIC ANTICANCER AGENTS | November 2010 | November 2013 | Allow | 37 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12905927 | SITE-SPECIFIC INHIBITORS OF HISTONE METHYLTRANSFERASE (HMTASE) AND PROCESS OF PREPARATION THEREOF | October 2010 | March 2011 | Allow | 5 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12800795 | LOW ODOUR OLIGOMERIC PHOTOINITIATOR AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME | May 2010 | August 2011 | Allow | 14 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12633944 | CRYSTALLINE FORMS OF A 3-CARBOXYPROPYL-AMINOTETRALIN COMPOUND | December 2009 | September 2011 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12600515 | NOVEL METHOD OF SYNTHESIZING FENOFIBRATE | November 2009 | January 2013 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12438664 | MANUFACTURE OF SUBSTANTIALLY PURE MONOCHLOROACETIC ACID | February 2009 | September 2011 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12327835 | METHOD OF PRODUCING SUBSTANCE IMMOBILIZING CARRIER | December 2008 | June 2012 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12212233 | FUNCTIONALIZED BIODEGRADABLE TRICLOSAN MONOMERS AND OLIGOMERS FOR CONTROLLED RELEASE | September 2008 | August 2011 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12225217 | METROD FOR PRODUCING 1,2-PHENYLETHANE COMPOUND USING ATOM TRANSFER RADICAL COUPLING REACTION | September 2008 | August 2011 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11923067 | INTERMEDIATES IN PRODUCING PHENOXYACETIC ACID DERIVATIVES AND METHOD OF USING THE SAME | October 2007 | April 2008 | Allow | 5 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 11923149 | INTERMEDIATES IN PRODUCING PHENOXYACETIC ACID DERIVATIVES AND METHOD OF USING THE SAME | October 2007 | February 2008 | Allow | 4 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10579904 | NEW PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF NITROOXYDERIVATIVES OF PARACETAMOL | May 2006 | July 2007 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 11416212 | METHOD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF 6,6,6-TRIHALO-3,5-DIOXOHEXANOIC ACID ESTERS | May 2006 | October 2007 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SAWYER, JENNIFER C.
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 SAWYER, JENNIFER C works in Art Unit 1692 and has examined 24 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 95.8%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 23 months.
Examiner SAWYER, JENNIFER C's allowance rate of 95.8% places them in the 85% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by SAWYER, JENNIFER C receive 0.96 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 6% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by SAWYER, JENNIFER C is 23 months. This places the examiner in the 84% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +7.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SAWYER, JENNIFER C. This interview benefit is in the 37% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 40.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 91% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 66.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 90% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 93% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 87% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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, 85.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 86% 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 8.3% of allowed cases (in the 92% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 8.7% of allowed cases (in the 88% 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.