Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18442107 | COUPLING NUMERICAL SIMULATION METHOD FOR SITE SELECTION OF UNDERGROUND SALT CAVERN HYDROGEN STORAGE | February 2024 | August 2024 | Allow | 6 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18402831 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR FAULT ESTIMATION OF MEASUREMENT AND CONTROL DEVICE FOR ROTARY STEERABLE DRILLING SYSTEM | January 2024 | June 2024 | Allow | 6 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18216345 | Surface Modified Unit Cell Lattice Structures For Optimized Secure Freeform Fabrication | June 2023 | May 2024 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18209702 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INTERACTIVE DISPLAY OF SYMBOLIC EQUATIONS EXTRACTED FROM GRAPHICAL MODELS | June 2023 | April 2024 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18320746 | SYSTEMS FOR USING RESCAN DATA FOR DENTAL PROCEDURES | May 2023 | April 2024 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18297216 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DESCRIBING, SIMULATING AND OPTIMIZING SPACEBORNE SYSTEMS AND MISSIONS | April 2023 | February 2024 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17426551 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INTEGRATED AND COMPREHENSIVE HYDRAULIC, THERMAL AND MECHANICAL TUBULAR DESIGN ANALYSIS FOR COMPLEX WELL TRAJECTORIES | July 2021 | June 2024 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17422099 | METHOD FOR SIMULATING CHATTER-FREE MILLED SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY | July 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17339310 | ASSESSING INTRA-CARDIAC ACTIVATION PATTERNS | June 2021 | June 2024 | Allow | 37 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17288577 | DATA PROCESSING APPARATUS, DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM, AND DATA PROCESSING METHOD | April 2021 | September 2024 | Abandon | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17188261 | METHOD MAKING IT POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE THE IDEAL CURVATURE OF A ROD OF VERTEBRAL OSTEOSYNTHESIS MATERIAL DESIGNED TO SUPPORT A PATIENT'S VERTEBRAL COLUMN | March 2021 | January 2024 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17267389 | Geometrical Compensations for Additive Manufacturing | February 2021 | February 2024 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17157144 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CREATING A MODEL OF A TECHNICAL SYSTEM FROM MEASUREMENTS | January 2021 | March 2024 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17139294 | SIMULATION SIGNAL VIEWING METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DIGITAL PRODUCT | December 2020 | May 2024 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17131905 | COMPUTER SIMULATION OF HUMAN RESPIRATORY DROPLETS | December 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 42 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17081964 | IMAGING DEVICE AND METHOD OF OPERATING THE SAME | October 2020 | April 2024 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17031556 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING VISUAL GUIDANCE IN A MEDICAL SURGERY | September 2020 | February 2024 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17010944 | Systems and Methods to Measure Quantum Gate Fidelity through Swap Spectroscopy | September 2020 | March 2024 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16898710 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING MOTION OF OBJECT | June 2020 | June 2024 | Allow | 48 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16881828 | STRUCTURAL ANALYTICAL BUILDING MODEL APPARATUS AND METHOD | May 2020 | June 2024 | Abandon | 49 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16641471 | METHOD OF OPTIMIZATION IN ORTHODONTIC APPLICATIONS | February 2020 | July 2024 | Abandon | 53 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16731020 | DETERMINATION OF STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF AN OBJECT | December 2019 | May 2024 | Allow | 52 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16330191 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MODELING CHARACTERISTICS OF A MELT POOL THAT FORMS DURING AN ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING PROCESS | March 2019 | May 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 15863767 | TECHNIQUES FOR DESIGNING INTERACTIVE OBJECTS WITH INTEGRATED SMART DEVICES | January 2018 | February 2024 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MAPAR, BIJAN.
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, 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.
⚠ 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 MAPAR, BIJAN works in Art Unit 2148 and has examined 18 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 66.7%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 41 months.
Examiner MAPAR, BIJAN's allowance rate of 66.7% places them in the 28% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by MAPAR, BIJAN receive 2.28 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 64% 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 MAPAR, BIJAN is 41 months. This places the examiner in the 21% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +25.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MAPAR, BIJAN. This interview benefit is in the 72% 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, 15.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 11% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. 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, 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 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.