Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19046503 | BATTERY MODULE | February 2025 | December 2025 | Allow | 10 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18651500 | BUTTON CELL | April 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18171414 | FUEL CELL SYSTEM | February 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18048838 | BATTERY CELL, BATTERY, ELECTRICAL DEVICE, METHOD AND EQUIPMENT FOR MANUFACTURING BATTERY CELLS | October 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17917127 | ELECTROCHEMICAL ELEMENT FOR A BATTERY AND CORRESPONDING BATTERY | October 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17766342 | CATHODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY, AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING SAME | May 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 45 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17778780 | BATTERY MODULE | May 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17775289 | Battery Having a Temperature Measurement Device | May 2022 | August 2025 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17640616 | Positive Electrode Material for Secondary Battery and Lithium Secondary Battery Comprising Same | March 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17673899 | STRUCTURAL BATTERY PACK | February 2022 | September 2025 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17668259 | ASSEMBLY SET FOR ASSEMBLING A CARRIER FRAMEWORK FOR A STACK OF BATTERY CELL BLOCKS | February 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 45 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 17633352 | POWER SUPPLY DEVICE, ELECTRIC VEHICLE USING SAME, AND POWER STORAGE DEVICE | February 2022 | September 2025 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17665953 | ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY AND BATTERY CELL | February 2022 | November 2025 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17631197 | Reduction of high-voltage interferences in a battery system for electric vehicles | January 2022 | August 2025 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17622508 | METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SECONDARY BATTERY | December 2021 | December 2025 | Allow | 48 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17416686 | SEPARATOR FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY, AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING SAME | December 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 52 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17534097 | MECHANICAL VENT FOR BATTERY PACK | November 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 47 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17608812 | HYBRID ENERGY-ABSORPTION FOR VEHICLE BATTERY PACK FRAMES | November 2021 | January 2026 | Allow | 50 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17508645 | MULTI-LAYER COMPOSITE STRUCTURE CONTAINING PRE-LITHIATED METAL OXIDE AND METHOD FOR PREPARING THE SAME | October 2021 | July 2025 | Allow | 45 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 17599358 | LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY | September 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 48 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17439468 | BATTERY PACK | September 2021 | November 2025 | Allow | 50 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17471205 | SECONDARY BATTERY | September 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 49 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17335207 | SOLID STATE BATTERY | June 2021 | January 2026 | Abandon | 55 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17218301 | TRACTION BATTERY PACK ENCLOSURE PATCH AND ENCLOSURE PATCHING METHOD | March 2021 | February 2026 | Allow | 59 | 4 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 17277252 | BATTERY MODULE COOLANT CHANNELS | March 2021 | November 2025 | Allow | 56 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17059503 | ELECTRODE PLATE AND ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE | November 2020 | December 2025 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KRONE, TAYLOR HARRISON.
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 KRONE, TAYLOR HARRISON works in Art Unit 1725 and has examined 12 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 91.7%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 50 months.
Examiner KRONE, TAYLOR HARRISON's allowance rate of 91.7% places them in the 77% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by KRONE, TAYLOR HARRISON receive 3.75 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 96% 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 KRONE, TAYLOR HARRISON is 50 months. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -16.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KRONE, TAYLOR HARRISON. This interview benefit is in the 2% percentile among all examiners. Note: Interviews show limited statistical benefit with this examiner compared to others, though they may still be valuable for clarifying issues.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 30.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 58% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 14.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 15% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 15% 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.
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.