Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17121518 | AUTOMATED STEEL STRUCTURE DESIGN SYSTEM AND METHOD USING MACHINE LEARNING | December 2020 | October 2024 | Abandon | 46 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16973947 | FLUID CIRCUIT SELECTION SYSTEM AND FLUID CIRCUIT SELECTION METHOD | December 2020 | June 2024 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17103606 | ROBOTIC ASSEMBLY OF A MESH SURFACE | November 2020 | May 2024 | Allow | 42 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17097268 | METHOD FOR CLASSIFICATION PARTS, SYSTEM OF PROCESSING, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE | November 2020 | October 2024 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17096219 | Systems and Methods for Controlling Predictive Modeling Processes on a Mobile Device | November 2020 | May 2024 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17069668 | SYSTEM FOR IN SITU ESTIMATION OF SUB-EROSION PRODUCTION RATES IN GAS WELLS | October 2020 | March 2024 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17067061 | Methods For Modeling Multiple Simultaneously Propagating Hydraulic Fractures | October 2020 | September 2024 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17028321 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROCESSING WELL LOG DATA FROM MULTIPLE WELLS USING MACHINE LEARNING | September 2020 | May 2024 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17017785 | RECORDING MEDIUM, COMPUTING METHOD, AND COMPUTING DEVICE | September 2020 | February 2024 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16940710 | METHODS FOR DESIGNING A BIO-CLIMATICALLY ADAPTED ZERO-ENERGY PREFABRICATED MODULAR BUILDING | July 2020 | June 2024 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16959704 | PARAMETER-SEARCHING METHOD, PARAMETER-SEARCHING DEVICE, AND PROGRAM FOR PARAMETER SEARCH | July 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 49 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16881166 | FACILITATING HYDROCARBON EXPLORATION FROM EARTH SYSTEM MODELS | May 2020 | August 2024 | Allow | 50 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16752545 | System and method for modelling system behaviour | January 2020 | February 2024 | Allow | 48 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16563043 | BLACK HOLE PARTICLE SWARM OPTIMIZATION FOR OPTIMAL WELL PLACEMENT IN FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND METHODS OF USE | September 2019 | March 2024 | Allow | 54 | 6 | 0 | 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 KIM, EUNHEE works in Art Unit 2147 and has examined 14 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 71.4%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 47 months.
Examiner KIM, EUNHEE's allowance rate of 71.4% places them in the 36% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by KIM, EUNHEE receive 2.50 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 69% 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 KIM, EUNHEE is 47 months. This places the examiner in the 11% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +90.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KIM, EUNHEE. 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, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 41% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 18.2% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 23% 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 10% 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 20.0% of allowed cases (in the 95% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.
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.