Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16971643 | METHOD FOR PRODUCING RESISTANT PEA DEXTRIN | August 2020 | February 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16755322 | TEXTURISED SEAFOOD ANALOGUE PRODUCTS, USE OF PEA STARCH AND POTATO STARCH TO REPLACE EGG WHITE AND METHOD OF PREPARATION | April 2020 | February 2025 | Abandon | 58 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16643391 | METHOD FOR PRE-COOKING RICE FOR THE FINAL COOKING THEREOF IN A MICROWAVE IN EIGHT MINUTES | February 2020 | November 2024 | Abandon | 57 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16479384 | POST-HARVEST TREATMENT METHOD USING CLONOSTACHYS ROSEA | July 2019 | January 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16402327 | PRODUCE RIPENING | May 2019 | October 2021 | Abandon | 29 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16139707 | DEHYDRATION PROCESS AND PRODUCT | September 2018 | December 2021 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 15760773 | METHOD OF RAPIDLY AND UNIFORMLY THAWING FROZEN AGRICULTURAL AND MARINE PRODUCTS/PROCESSED FOODS | March 2018 | October 2021 | Abandon | 43 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15106438 | PARTICLE SCORE CALIBRATION | June 2016 | March 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 15036469 | METHODS OF FEEDING ANIMALS FERMENTATION CELL MASS | May 2016 | February 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 14504905 | MODIFIED AND CONTROLLED ATMOSPHERE SYSTEM AND METHOD | October 2014 | May 2016 | Abandon | 20 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 14480625 | Packaging and Methods of Use For Respiring Biological Materials | September 2014 | April 2022 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 14367419 | WINE PACKAGED IN ALUMINIUM CONTAINERS | June 2014 | May 2016 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14061654 | Deployable, Customized Vase for Cookie Bouquets | October 2013 | October 2016 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13971898 | CAPSULES FOR MAKING INFUSED DRINKS | August 2013 | March 2016 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13867541 | DISPOSABLE YARD DEBRIS BUNDLING DEVICE WITH DRAWSTRINGS | April 2013 | September 2015 | Allow | 29 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13850288 | INTERLOCKING UNIFORMLY VERTICALLY SCALABLE THERMOFORMED FOOD PACKAGING (SUITABLE FOR CHOCOLATES) | March 2013 | June 2016 | Abandon | 38 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 13777033 | HEAT-SHRINKABLE FILM, MOLDED PRODUCT AND HEAT-SHRINKABLE LABEL EMPLOYING THE FILM, AND CONTAINER EMPLOYING THE MOLDED PRODUCT OR HAVING THE LABEL FITTED THEREON | February 2013 | August 2015 | Allow | 30 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13685238 | Multi-Vessel Systems and Methods | November 2012 | May 2016 | Abandon | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13665421 | RESIN COMPOSITION FOR REFRIGERANT-TRANSPORTING HOSE AND METHOD OF PRODUCING THE RESIN COMPOSITION, AND REFRIGERANT-TRANSPORTING HOSE | October 2012 | September 2015 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13579899 | METHOD FOR PRESERVING FRESH CUT LEMON | October 2012 | June 2016 | Abandon | 45 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13648430 | Non-Rigid Food Packaging Product with Fill Line | October 2012 | July 2014 | Abandon | 21 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13569149 | Flavor Infusion Container | August 2012 | June 2016 | Abandon | 46 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13539455 | System for Producing Uniform Serving Portions in a Pan-prepared Comestible | July 2012 | November 2017 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13537888 | Pizza and Method of Preparation | June 2012 | May 2017 | Abandon | 58 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13503411 | PROCESS FOR PRODUCING FROZEN CONFECTIONERY PRODUCTS | May 2012 | February 2017 | Abandon | 58 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13353980 | HEAT-SHRINKABLE RESIN TUBE AND ROTARY MEMBER FOR IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS | January 2012 | July 2015 | Allow | 42 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13326667 | Apparatus for Preserving Cooked Food Palatability | December 2011 | May 2016 | Abandon | 53 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 12988807 | LEISURE ARTICLES AND CARS PREPARED BY MULTILAYER ROTATIONAL MOULDING | January 2011 | November 2014 | Allow | 48 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 12977647 | BIAXIALLY ORIENTED POLYLACTIC ACID FILM WITH REDUCED NOISE LEVEL | December 2010 | December 2013 | Allow | 36 | 4 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 12664577 | HIGH PRESSURE FROZEN STERILIZATION PROCESS | November 2010 | August 2021 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12913014 | METHOD FOR MOLDING MOLDED FOAM, AND MOLDED FOAM | October 2010 | February 2015 | Allow | 51 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12803319 | Candy with randomized, hidden images for game playing | June 2010 | June 2016 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 12721168 | Ice Cream Cone Stabilizer and Method | March 2010 | June 2016 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 12656258 | Intermittent flow extrusion process and food product | January 2010 | March 2016 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12365425 | Non-Rigid Food Packaging Product with Fill Line | February 2009 | August 2016 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 1 | No | No |
| 11792825 | METHOD FOR PRESERVING FLAVOR COMPONENT | December 2008 | August 2016 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12277886 | DESSERT FOOD PACKAGE | November 2008 | July 2016 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12299146 | MODIFIED EDIBLE SUBSTRATES SUITABLE FOR PRINTING | October 2008 | August 2016 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11665026 | Package For Lump Of Meat Having Void Within The Inside Thereof And Method For Production Thereof | August 2008 | May 2017 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12065396 | MILK MATERIAL WITH GOOD FLAVOR AND PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES AND PROCESS OF PRODUCING THE SAME | February 2008 | August 2016 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11962201 | Induced Viscosity Nutritional Emulsions Comprising A Carbohydrate-Surfactant Complex | December 2007 | October 2017 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11962198 | Chilled Nutritional Emulsions | December 2007 | October 2017 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11627851 | Beverage Freshness Detecting and Indicating Systems | January 2007 | February 2017 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10591126 | MULTILAYER DOSE HAVING A CONCAVE SURFACE | August 2006 | December 2010 | Allow | 52 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11431302 | Infusion mixture substantially free of fine particulate and a method for making an infusion mixture | May 2006 | August 2016 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KASHNIKOW, ERIK.
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, 10.0% 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 KASHNIKOW, ERIK works in Art Unit 1792 and has examined 45 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 22.2%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 57 months.
Examiner KASHNIKOW, ERIK's allowance rate of 22.2% places them in the 3% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by KASHNIKOW, ERIK receive 3.67 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 94% 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 KASHNIKOW, ERIK is 57 months. This places the examiner in the 2% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +25.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KASHNIKOW, ERIK. This interview benefit is in the 71% 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, 7.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 4% 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 19.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 24% 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.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 22.2% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 28% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show below-average success with this examiner. Consider whether your arguments are strong enough to warrant a PAC request.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 31.2% of appeals filed. This is in the 4% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 60.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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, 85.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 86% 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.