Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18694883 | HYDRAULIC FRACTURING SYSTEM | March 2024 | September 2024 | Allow | 6 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18399584 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR SIMULATING DYNAMIC DIGITAL TWIN MODEL OF DOMINANT OPERATION OF WIND TURBINE GENERATOR ASSEMBLY | December 2023 | July 2024 | Allow | 7 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18324160 | Methodfor modeling blade dimensional chains considering tenon-mortise connections | May 2023 | August 2024 | Abandon | 15 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18313982 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DESIGNING PHOTONIC COMPUTATIONAL ARCHITECTURES | May 2023 | March 2024 | Allow | 10 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18082626 | METHOD FOR CONSTRUCTING GENERAL PROBABILITY MODEL OF HARMONIC EMISSION LEVEL FOR INDUSTRIAL LOAD | December 2022 | May 2024 | Abandon | 17 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17871897 | DRILL BIT DESIGN METHOD BASED ON ROCK CRUSHING PRINCIPLE WITH LOCAL VARIABLE STRENGTH | July 2022 | May 2024 | Abandon | 22 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17729548 | PROCESS OPTIMIZATION USING MIXED INTEGER NONLINEAR PROGRAMMING | April 2022 | September 2024 | Abandon | 29 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17623617 | MATERIAL-BASED SUBDOMAIN HYBRID CELLULAR AUTOMATA ALGORITHM FOR MATERIAL OPTIMIZATION OF THIN-WALLED FRAME STRUCTURES | December 2021 | February 2024 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17492913 | SERVICE SPECIFYING METHOD AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM | October 2021 | September 2024 | Abandon | 35 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17367285 | VEHICLE IMPACT ANALYSIS WITH TWO-POINT-CONTACT CURVES | July 2021 | April 2024 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17341275 | DYNAMIC PREDICTION METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INITIATION VOLUME OF DEBRIS FLOW SLOPE SOURCE | June 2021 | August 2024 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17130277 | SIMULATING TANGIBLE MATERIAL SELECTION PROCESSES TO DETERMINE AN OPTIMAL TANGIBLE MATERIAL SELECTION PROCESS | December 2020 | September 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17128520 | REFINING AN ECOLOGICAL NICHE MODEL | December 2020 | June 2024 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17067830 | INITIATING A DIGITAL TWIN BASED ON COGNITIVE LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT | October 2020 | September 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16847899 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR GENERATING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRODUCT HAVING A CUBIC INTERNAL STRUCTURE | April 2020 | March 2024 | Allow | 47 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16743767 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONDUCTING COMPUTING EXPERIMENTS | January 2020 | October 2023 | Allow | 45 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16541751 | MODEL TRAINING FRAMEWORK | August 2019 | April 2024 | Allow | 56 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16238274 | SYSTEM, METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR ANALOG AND MIX-SIGNAL CIRCUIT PLACEMENT | January 2019 | April 2024 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16198698 | ROBOTICS APPLICATION SIMULATION MANAGEMENT | November 2018 | September 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16146941 | COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN SYSTEM FOR AIRBORNE CONTAMINANT FLOWS | September 2018 | August 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 15759299 | SUBSURFACE ELECTRIC FIELD MONITORING METHODS AND SYSTEMS EMPLOYING A CURRENT FOCUSING CEMENT ARRANGEMENT | March 2018 | May 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner WECHSELBERGER, ALFRED H..
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 WECHSELBERGER, ALFRED H. works in Art Unit 2146 and has examined 14 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 57.1%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 47 months.
Examiner WECHSELBERGER, ALFRED H.'s allowance rate of 57.1% 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 WECHSELBERGER, ALFRED H. receive 3.50 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 WECHSELBERGER, ALFRED H. 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 +72.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by WECHSELBERGER, ALFRED H.. This interview benefit is in the 99% 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, 13.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 8% 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 20.0% 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 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 11% 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 11% 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.