Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19091162 | PRODUCTION METHOD FOR HIGH-QUALITY ROOM-TEMPERATURE COOKED STINKY MANDARIN FISH | March 2025 | June 2025 | Allow | 3 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18005602 | BREWING SYSTEM, BIOREACTOR PROVIDED WITH SUCH A SYSTEM AND IMPLEMENTATION METHOD THEREOF | January 2023 | February 2026 | Abandon | 37 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 18012463 | KITCHEN APPLIANCE AND METHOD FOR ROASTING MEAT | December 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 37 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17899555 | THE EVERYTHING BONE PET TREAT | August 2022 | August 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17758532 | ULTRAVIOLET TREATMENT OF TRANSFORMED COLEOPTERA LARVAE FOR VITAMIN D3 ENRICHMENT | July 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17786719 | A PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING CINNAMON TEA POD FROM CINNAMOMUM ZEYLANICUM | June 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17764121 | A DEVICE AND METHOD FOR HEATING A LIQUID CONFECTIONERY PRODUCT | March 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 37 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17582422 | SOUS VIDE COOKING CONTROL METHOD | January 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17531994 | COOKING METHOD FOR OPERATING A COOKING DEVICE | November 2021 | August 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17453970 | METHOD OF OPERATING AND CONTROLLING A GRILL | November 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17508733 | COOKING APPLIANCE CONTROL PANEL WITH MOVEMENT DETECTOR FOR CONTROLLING COOKING ON A FUNCTION OF LOCATION | October 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17399394 | FROZEN FOOD | August 2021 | August 2025 | Abandon | 48 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17399460 | ACOUSTIC TREATMENT OF BREWED, MATURED OR FERMENTED FOOD AND RELATED SYSTEMS | August 2021 | February 2026 | Abandon | 54 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 17423965 | PROCESS FOR PURIFYING A HUMAN MILK OLIGOSACCHARIDE AND RELATED COMPOSITIONS | July 2021 | October 2024 | Abandon | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17371216 | MILK-BASED PRODUCT | July 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17415905 | CREAM-CHEESE-LIKE FOOD PRODUCT AND PRODUCTION METHOD | June 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17345987 | METHOD AND A DEVICE FOR MOISTURIZING PIECES OF DOUGH | June 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17331219 | METHOD OF MAKING A FRESH PACKED PRESERVATIVE-FREE HUMMUS HAVING IMPROVED SHELF LIFE | May 2021 | December 2025 | Abandon | 55 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17331069 | METHOD OF MAKING PRESERVATIVE-FREE FOOD PRODUCT HAVING IMPROVED SHELF LIFE | May 2021 | July 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 2 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 17232065 | METHOD OF MAKING FOIE GRAS USING DUCK LIVER PRODUCED BY RAISING DUCKS WITHOUT CAGE AND FORCE-FEEDING, AND THE FOIE GRAS | April 2021 | January 2024 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17284123 | PRODUCTION METHOD FOR DAINTY-FOOD-LIKE FOOD PRODUCT | April 2021 | January 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17247558 | VACUUM MICROWAVE DRYING OF FOODS WITH PULSED ELECTRIC FIELD PRE-TREATMENT | December 2020 | February 2023 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17117353 | ADAPTIVE CLOSED LOOP CONTROL METHOD FOR A COOKING APPLIANCE | December 2020 | May 2023 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16973438 | COOKING CONTROL METHOD AND DEVICE, AND COMPUTER STORAGE MEDIUM | December 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17102925 | Appliances and Methods for Adaptive Zonal Cooking | November 2020 | December 2023 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17044375 | MEAT PROCESSING UNIT AND METHOD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF AN EXTRUDED MEAT PRODUCT | October 2020 | February 2023 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16975311 | Method and System for Preparing Dishes | August 2020 | May 2023 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16923288 | INTAKE REGULATING CONTAINER FOR FITNESS ACTIVITIES | July 2020 | October 2024 | Abandon | 51 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16763007 | COOKING APPLIANCE AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF | May 2020 | January 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16839866 | PET FOOD PRODUCT AND METHOD FOR MAKING | April 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 59 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16718149 | Edible Pet Chew with Meat Analogue Member and Method for Making the Same | December 2019 | March 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15775033 | PET FOOD | May 2018 | January 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 1 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner RODGERS, ARIEL M.
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.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner RODGERS, ARIEL M works in Art Unit 1792 and has examined 24 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 8.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 47 months.
Examiner RODGERS, ARIEL M's allowance rate of 8.3% 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 RODGERS, ARIEL M receive 2.54 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 74% 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 RODGERS, ARIEL M is 47 months. This places the examiner in the 9% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +6.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by RODGERS, ARIEL M. This interview benefit is in the 33% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
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 0% 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 file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 98% 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 8% 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.