Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18442938 | DUAL ELECTROLYTE ELECTROCHEMICAL CELLS, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME | February 2024 | August 2025 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18139169 | Pouch, Secondary Battery Comprising the Same, and Method for Manufacturing the Secondary Battery | April 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18132140 | BATTERY AND CURRENT COLLECTOR APPLIED THERETO, AND BATTERY PACK AND VEHICLE INCLUDING THE BATTERY | April 2023 | August 2025 | Allow | 29 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17779421 | METHOD FOR PRE-LITHIATING AN ANODE | May 2022 | September 2025 | Abandon | 40 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17563609 | BATTERY AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME | December 2021 | June 2025 | Allow | 42 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17531185 | RECHARGEABLE BATTERY | November 2021 | August 2024 | Allow | 32 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17415270 | CYLINDRICAL BATTERY | June 2021 | June 2025 | Allow | 48 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17236677 | POROUS MATERIALS FOR BATTERY ELECTRODES | April 2021 | May 2023 | Abandon | 24 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17189730 | RECHARGEABLE BATTERY | March 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 55 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 17189727 | BUTTON CELL | March 2021 | February 2024 | Allow | 36 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17155844 | NANOCOMPOSITE AND METHOD OF MAKING CATALYST FOR HIGH LOADING AND UTILIZATION OF SULFUR AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES | January 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 56 | 3 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 17051718 | SECONDARY BATTERY | October 2020 | April 2025 | Allow | 54 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17009805 | BUTTON BATTERY FOR IMPROVING UTILIZATION RATE OF RADIAL SPACE | September 2020 | November 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 16967257 | SEALING BODY AND BATTERY | August 2020 | January 2026 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner WYROUGH, PAUL CHRISTIAN ST.
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, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.
✓ 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 WYROUGH, PAUL CHRISTIAN ST works in Art Unit 1723 and has examined 10 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 60.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 54 months.
Examiner WYROUGH, PAUL CHRISTIAN ST's allowance rate of 60.0% places them in the 20% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by WYROUGH, PAUL CHRISTIAN ST receive 4.50 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 99% 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 WYROUGH, PAUL CHRISTIAN ST is 54 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 +58.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by WYROUGH, PAUL CHRISTIAN ST. This interview benefit is in the 96% 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, 24.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 34% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 6.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 7% 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, 66.7% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 52% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. If you have strong arguments, a PAC request may result in favorable reconsideration.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 47% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 50.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.
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 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 5% 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.