Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18828345 | DECORATIVE SHEET AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DECORATIVE SHEET | September 2024 | January 2025 | Allow | 5 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18770913 | DECORATIVE SHEET AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING DECORATIVE SHEET | July 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18674236 | DECORATIVE SHEET, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING DECORATIVE SHEET | May 2024 | January 2025 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 18610364 | ELECTRICAL DEBONDING ADHESIVE SHEET, JOINED BODY, AND JOINING AND SEPARATION METHOD FOR ADHEREND | March 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18403365 | DECORATIVE SHEET AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING DECORATIVE SHEET | January 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18360760 | MULTILAYER POUCH WITH OXYGEN BARRIER TECHNOLOGY | July 2023 | March 2026 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18348464 | GLASS CONTAINER WITH INCREASED BREAKAGE RESISTANCE | July 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18247342 | PROCESS FOR RECYCLING PROPYLENE-ETHYLENE COPOLYMERS | March 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 30 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 18187601 | COMPOSTABLE CUP | March 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17855777 | HIGH PERFORMANCE FIBERS COMPOSITE SHEET | June 2022 | September 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17757755 | FILM STACKS FOR THIN CIRCULAR POLARIZERS | June 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17783395 | TISSUE PRODUCT AND METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PRODUCING SAME | June 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17630160 | Laminated Board and Application Thereof | January 2022 | July 2025 | Abandon | 42 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 17584356 | NEGATIVE ELECTRODE FOR USE IN FLUORIDE ION SECONDARY BATTERY AND FLUORIDE ION SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING SAME | January 2022 | September 2025 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17300728 | Insulating cement containing wall composition, insulating cement, and related atricles produced therefrom | October 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 37 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17281866 | METAL-CLAD LAMINATE, WIRING BOARD, METAL FOIL PROVIDED WITH RESIN, AND RESIN COMPOSITION | March 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 53 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16979770 | METHOD FOR IMPROVING DRYNESS OF INSULATION MATERIAL AND ARTICLES COMPRISING IMPROVED INSULATION MATERIALS | September 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15214540 | ARTICLE WITH NONWOVEN WEB COMPONENT FORMED WITH LOFT-ENHANCING CALENDER BOND SHAPES AND PATTERNS | July 2016 | May 2018 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14372085 | HIGH STRENGTH CERAMIC FIBERS AND METHODS OF FABRICATION | July 2014 | April 2018 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14327720 | SILICA SUPPORT STRUCTURE FOR A ZEOLITE MEMBRANE | July 2014 | February 2018 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 14302604 | INSULATIVE PRODUCTS HAVING BIO-BASED BINDERS | June 2014 | February 2018 | Allow | 44 | 6 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13699327 | BREATHABLE NONWOVEN COMPOSITE | February 2013 | August 2014 | Abandon | 20 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13551883 | SURFACE MODIFIED POLYMERIC MATERIALS, MODIFIED FUNCTIONALIZED POLYMERS, FUNCTIONAL POLYMERS, AND METHODS | July 2012 | May 2018 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13465896 | Self-Decontaminating Coatings and Fabrics | May 2012 | November 2013 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13034667 | GROUP IV METAL OR SEMICONDUCTOR NANOWIRE FABRIC | February 2011 | March 2018 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 1 | Yes | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner VINEIS, FRANK J works in Art Unit 1781 and has examined 11 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 63.6%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 44 months.
Examiner VINEIS, FRANK J's allowance rate of 63.6% places them in the 24% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by VINEIS, FRANK J receive 3.73 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 VINEIS, FRANK J is 44 months. This places the examiner in the 14% 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 VINEIS, FRANK J. This interview benefit is in the 57% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 16.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 13% 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 25.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 33% 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 file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 75.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 80% 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 7% 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 8% 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.