Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17103524 | MULTI-PIECE LAYERED HONEYCOMB EXTRUSION DIES AND METHODS OF MAKING SAME | November 2020 | June 2023 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17058397 | HONEYCOMB EXTRUSION DIES AND FORMING METHODS | November 2020 | June 2023 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17085497 | PREFORM FIBER PLACEMENT ON A THREE-DIMENSIONAL SURFACE | October 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 53 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17075554 | IMPRINT APPARATUS, IMPRINT METHOD, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ARTICLE | October 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17032468 | Microwave-Coupled 3D Printing System and Equipment for Food Design and Production | September 2020 | September 2022 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17041275 | ADDITIVE METHOD OF PRODUCING MOLDED BODIES | September 2020 | September 2022 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16969178 | AN AUTOMATED ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING DEVICE AND METHOD | August 2020 | January 2024 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16964487 | PRESSURE SENSOR | July 2020 | March 2023 | Abandon | 32 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16928476 | IMPRINT APPARATUS, IMPRINT METHOD, AND ARTICLE MANUFACTURING METHOD | July 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 16914392 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING OF PEELABLE SACRIFICIAL STRUCTURE | June 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16956264 | CAST TOOLING AND METHODS FOR CASTING TOOLS | June 2020 | September 2023 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16903203 | Methods and Systems for Additive Manufacturing | June 2020 | September 2024 | Abandon | 51 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16772964 | IMPRINT TEMPLATE, PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF AND IMPRINT METHOD | June 2020 | February 2024 | Allow | 44 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16769502 | METHOD FOR PRODUCING THREE-DIMENSIONAL MOLDED OBJECT, AND POWDER MATERIAL USED THEREIN | June 2020 | February 2024 | Allow | 45 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 16768966 | An Imprinted Polymeric Substrate | June 2020 | December 2023 | Abandon | 42 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 15733119 | COOLING APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR COOLING A CONTINUOUS STRIP | May 2020 | February 2023 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16641367 | METHOD FOR PRODUCING INSULATED WINDING ELEMENTS | May 2020 | July 2022 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16862179 | REPLICATION DEVICE AND METHOD FOR REPRODUCING A STRUCTURE ON A SUBSTRATE | April 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 16759521 | ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING DEVICE AND ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING METHOD | April 2020 | February 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16650253 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR FORMING CONTAINER AND CONTAINER | March 2020 | November 2024 | Allow | 56 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16822647 | EJECTION MATERIAL EJECTING DEVICE AND IMPRINT APPARATUS | March 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16817132 | THERMOFORMING MULTIPLE ALIGNERS IN PARALLEL | March 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16807606 | IMPRINTING METHOD AND IMPRINTING APPARATUS | March 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 42 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16793797 | IMPRINT DEVICE, IMPRINT METHOD, AND SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE MANUFACTURING METHOD | February 2020 | July 2023 | Allow | 41 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16776231 | MATERIAL DEPOSITION TO FORM A SHEET STRUCTURE | January 2020 | December 2023 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16625312 | Apparatus to Create Objects and Semi-Rigid Substrate Therefor | December 2019 | June 2023 | Abandon | 42 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16624409 | FLEXIBLE MANDREL, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING COMPOSITE COMPONENT | December 2019 | October 2022 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16588773 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR FABRICATION OF COMPOSITE TOOLING | September 2019 | December 2024 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16551239 | IMPRINT TEMPLATES, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING IMPRINT TEMPLATES, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES | August 2019 | May 2023 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner HATCH, JOHN W.
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 HATCH, JOHN W works in Art Unit 1754 and has examined 29 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 55.2%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 41 months.
Examiner HATCH, JOHN W's allowance rate of 55.2% places them in the 17% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by HATCH, JOHN W receive 2.76 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 77% 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 HATCH, JOHN W is 41 months. This places the examiner in the 21% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +37.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HATCH, JOHN W. This interview benefit is in the 84% 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, 22.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 31% 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 23.1% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 32% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.
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 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, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 1% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 6% 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 12.5% of allowed cases (in the 92% 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.