Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17252212 | BASE PAPER FOR PAPER TUBE, AND PAPER TUBE | December 2020 | April 2024 | Abandon | 40 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17098034 | SYSTEM FOR CONTINUOUS TREATMENT OF CELLULOSE PULPS | November 2020 | October 2024 | Abandon | 47 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 17048857 | DURABLE TISSUE PRODUCT | October 2020 | January 2024 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16825440 | ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM AND REMOVING METHOD | March 2020 | August 2022 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16801187 | THREE-DIMENSIONAL SHAPING METHOD | February 2020 | December 2022 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16634748 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ELECTROPHOTOGRAPHY-BASED ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING OF PARTS UTILIZING MULTIPLE PRINTING PATHS | January 2020 | December 2022 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16720112 | THREE-DIMENSIONAL SHAPING APPARATUS, THREE-DIMENSIONAL SHAPING SYSTEM, AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL SHAPED ARTICLE PRODUCTION METHOD | December 2019 | February 2023 | Abandon | 38 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 16609470 | GUIDE PORTION FOR PRINTING MATERIAL CONTAINER | October 2019 | December 2022 | Abandon | 37 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16567802 | Additively Manufactured Plastic Scintillation Detector | September 2019 | December 2022 | Abandon | 39 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16562336 | Nozzle with Pressure and Force Sensing | September 2019 | August 2021 | Abandon | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16175472 | APPARATUS FOR ADDITIVELY MANUFACTURING OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECTS | October 2018 | September 2021 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16135862 | METHOD FOR CONSTRUCTING WALL-LIKE STRUCTURE | September 2018 | November 2021 | Abandon | 38 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16075625 | BUILD MATERIAL EXTRACTION USING VIBRATION AND AIRFLOW | August 2018 | August 2022 | Allow | 48 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15951139 | THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRINTER AND SCANNING MODULE THEREOF | April 2018 | November 2021 | Abandon | 43 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15747172 | MOLD | January 2018 | November 2019 | Abandon | 22 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 15859910 | ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS INCLUDING A PARTICULATE DISPENSER AND METHODS OF OPERATING SUCH SYSTEMS | January 2018 | September 2021 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 15567539 | METHODS OF EXTRUDING MULTILAYER FIBERS | October 2017 | December 2019 | Abandon | 26 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 15248091 | SOLID STATE MICROCELLULAR FOAMING METHOD INCLUDING CONTINUOUS SATURATION OF SOLID POLYMERIC MATERIAL | August 2016 | June 2019 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14991739 | APPARATUS OF CONTROLLING THE BUBBLE SIZE AND CONTENTS OF BUBBLE, AND THAT METHOD | January 2016 | June 2019 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 14958502 | System for Pump Protection with a Hydraulic Turbocharger | December 2015 | June 2019 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14517640 | BUCKET MIXER INSERT | October 2014 | May 2019 | Allow | 55 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13541307 | CONTROLLER AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM FOR DISPENSING AND BLENDING/MIXING BEVERAGE INGREDIENTS | July 2012 | December 2013 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13384839 | AUTOMATIC MILK PREPARING DEVICE | April 2012 | March 2014 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13265465 | MIXING APPARATUS FOR PRODUCING A MIXTURE COMPOSED OF AT LEAST THREE COMPONENTS | October 2011 | February 2015 | Allow | 40 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 12743732 | POWDER TREATING APPARATUS | May 2010 | July 2014 | Allow | 50 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner RASHID, FAZLE A.
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, 100.0% 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 RASHID, FAZLE A works in Art Unit 1748 and has examined 25 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 44.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 38 months.
Examiner RASHID, FAZLE A's allowance rate of 44.0% places them in the 10% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by RASHID, FAZLE A receive 1.96 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 45% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by RASHID, FAZLE A is 38 months. This places the examiner in the 29% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +57.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by RASHID, FAZLE A. 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, 26.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 45% 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 40.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 62% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.
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 3% 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 16% 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, 57.1% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 57% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 5% 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 6% 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.