Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18740553 | POSITIVE ACTIVE MATERIAL, POSITIVE ELECTRODE PLATE, LITHIUM-ION BATTERY, AND ELECTRICAL DEVICE | June 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 17 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 18673693 | Secondary Battery and Batttery Module Having the Same | May 2024 | July 2025 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18405649 | POWER-TOOL ACCEPTING TWO BATTERY TYPES | January 2024 | October 2024 | Abandon | 10 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18348723 | NEGATIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING THE SAME | July 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17694708 | BATTERY ASSEMBLY AND PREPARATION METHOD, BATTERY AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE | March 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 43 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 17639284 | SECONDARY BATTERY, SECONDARY BATTERY SYSTEM, AND CONTROL METHOD | February 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17586181 | BATTERY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INCLUDING CAPACITANCE MEASUREMENT FOR MONITORING BATTERY CELL HEALTH | January 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 49 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17570799 | Pouch-Type Secondary Battery and Battery Module Having the Same | January 2022 | August 2025 | Allow | 43 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17569301 | BATTERY CELL AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME | January 2022 | September 2025 | Allow | 44 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17559093 | BATTERY ELECTRODE | December 2021 | November 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17451147 | Conformable Battery Pack Assembly | October 2021 | February 2026 | Abandon | 52 | 2 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 17470044 | Sensing Assembly and Battery Module | September 2021 | August 2025 | Allow | 47 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17221766 | MOISTURE ABSORBING AND HYDROFLUORIC ACID SCAVENGING MEMBRANES COMPRISING ARAMID NANOFIBERS | April 2021 | April 2024 | Abandon | 36 | 4 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 17250954 | PROCESS FOR MAKING A PARTIALLY COATED ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL | April 2021 | November 2025 | Abandon | 55 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17178553 | BUTTON CELL INCLUDING A TERMINAL PLATE HAVING A PROTRUDED PART | February 2021 | August 2025 | Allow | 54 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17259722 | SECONDARY BATTERY AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME | January 2021 | December 2025 | Abandon | 59 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17060184 | SENSING ASSEMBLY AND BATTERY MODULE COMPRISING THE SAME | October 2020 | February 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16759019 | CONNECTION POLE FOR A RECHARGEABLE BATTERY AND RECHARGEABLE-BATTERY HOUSING | April 2020 | October 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16644147 | BATTERY PACK AND METHOD | March 2020 | August 2025 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KENLAW, GRACE A.
With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.
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.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner KENLAW, GRACE A works in Art Unit 1723 and has examined 10 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 40.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 55 months.
Examiner KENLAW, GRACE A's allowance rate of 40.0% places them in the 7% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by KENLAW, GRACE A receive 4.40 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 98% 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 KENLAW, GRACE A is 55 months. This places the examiner in the 2% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +50.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KENLAW, GRACE A. This interview benefit is in the 93% 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 14% 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 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 0% 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 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 0% 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, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 98% 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 4% 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.