Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17256721 | METHOD FOR PRODUCING A COPOLYMER FOAM WITH POLYAMIDE BLOCKS AND POLYETHER BLOCKS | December 2020 | February 2025 | Abandon | 50 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17120532 | Organometallic Complex, Light-Emitting Element, Light-Emitting Device, Electronic Device, and Lighting Device | December 2020 | January 2024 | Abandon | 37 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17110768 | RESIN COMPOSITION FOR FOAM, FOAM, AND PRODUCTION METHOD OF FOAM | December 2020 | April 2024 | Abandon | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17051917 | SELF-HEALING CROSS-LINKABLE SHELLS | October 2020 | March 2024 | Abandon | 40 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17083356 | Precursors and Flowable CVD Methods for Making Low-K Films to Fill Surface Features | October 2020 | September 2023 | Abandon | 35 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17051306 | FLAME RETARDANT COATING FILM | October 2020 | October 2023 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17049618 | Foamed Polyolefin Compositions for Wire and Cable Coating | October 2020 | April 2024 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17048379 | USE OF VULCANISATES COMPRISING HNBR-PEG ACRYLATE COPOLYMER IN CONTACT WITH COOLANT | October 2020 | March 2024 | Abandon | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17042004 | TRANSIENT POLYMER FORMULATIONS, ARTICLES THEREOF, AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING SAME | September 2020 | March 2024 | Abandon | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16963587 | SOLVENT-FREE CURABLE SILICONE RELEASING AGENT COMPOSITION AND RELEASE SHEET | July 2020 | September 2023 | Abandon | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16933202 | Polymeric Non-Woven Mat | July 2020 | March 2024 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16925842 | LEUCO POLYMERS AS BLUING AGENTS IN LAUNDRY CARE COMPOSITIONS | July 2020 | May 2023 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16767303 | AEROGEL PRECURSOR AND AEROGEL PRODUCED USING SAME | May 2020 | July 2023 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16761370 | POLYURETHANE FOAM COMPOSITE PANEL | May 2020 | April 2024 | Abandon | 47 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16696031 | 3D PRINTING HEAT RESISTANT SUPPORT MATERIAL | November 2019 | May 2023 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16479308 | AQUEOUS SILICONE DISPERSION, COATING FILM AND COSMETIC | July 2019 | May 2023 | Abandon | 46 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16469548 | POLYOLEFIN COMPOSITION FOR NON-ORIENTED FILM WITH IMRPOVED OXYGEN BARRIER PROPERTY | June 2019 | May 2023 | Abandon | 47 | 7 | 0 | No | No |
| 16316808 | CAVITY SEALING SYSTEM FOR AUTOMOTIVE VEHICLES | January 2019 | March 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 15740849 | POLYMER COMPOSITION, ITS METHOD OF PREPARATION AND USE | December 2017 | May 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | No | No |
| 15507915 | AMIDE ELASTOMER FOAM PARTICLES, METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME, FOAM MOLDED BODY AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING FOAM MOLDED BODY | March 2017 | March 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KELLEY, HEIDI RIVIERE.
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 KELLEY, HEIDI RIVIERE works in Art Unit 1765 and has examined 20 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 5.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.
Examiner KELLEY, HEIDI RIVIERE's allowance rate of 5.0% places them in the 1% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by KELLEY, HEIDI RIVIERE receive 2.45 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 67% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by KELLEY, HEIDI RIVIERE is 42 months. This places the examiner in the 18% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -5.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KELLEY, HEIDI RIVIERE. This interview benefit is in the 6% 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, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 0% 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 1% 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 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, 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 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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 7% 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.