USPTO Examiner CURRAN J MITCHELL - Art Unit 2169

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
19244778RELIABLE OUTPUTS FROM LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS FOR MULTI-LABEL CLASSIFICATION TASKSJune 2025August 2025Allow200NoNo
18585465BUILT-IN ANALYTICS FOR DATABASE MANAGEMENTFebruary 2024February 2026Allow2430YesNo
18526692DATA DISPLAY METHOD, DEVICE, COMPUTER APPARATUS AND SYSTEMDecember 2023January 2026Allow2530NoNo
18513483SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATIC PROFILE SEGMENTATION USING SMALL TEXT VARIATIONSNovember 2023February 2026Abandon2720NoNo
18319322METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IDENTIFYING SUSTAINED CHANGES IN TIME SERIES DATA USING CONFIGURABLE CHANGE PARAMETER VALUESMay 2023November 2025Abandon3020NoNo
18301537VARIABLE DENSITY-BASED CLUSTERING ON DATA STREAMSApril 2023September 2025Allow2920YesNo
18134592SEMANTIC SEARCH AND RULE METHODS FOR A DISTRIBUTED DATA SYSTEMApril 2023February 2026Abandon3420YesYes
18019736Source Scoring for Entity Representation SystemsFebruary 2023March 2026Allow3730NoNo
17806767NATIVE METADATA GENERATION WITHIN A STREAM-ORIENTED SYSTEMJune 2022December 2025Abandon4260NoNo
17742161SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ELECTRONIC DATA RECORD SYNCHRONIZATIONMay 2022October 2025Allow4150YesNo
17639164Centralized Knowledge Repository and Data Mining SystemFebruary 2022November 2025Allow4430NoNo
17484808GENERATING AND VISUALIZING A DATA STRUCTURE OF A MANAGEMENT MODEL OF AN APPLICATION SERVERSeptember 2021February 2026Abandon5360YesNo
17342986FILTERED DATA LAKE FOR ENTERPRISE SECURITYJune 2021August 2025Allow5050YesNo
17170095AUTOMATIC DOCUMENT SOURCE IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMSFebruary 2021October 2025Allow5640YesNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner CURRAN, J MITCHELL - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner CURRAN, J MITCHELL works in Art Unit 2169 and has examined 3 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 53 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner CURRAN, J MITCHELL'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.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by CURRAN, J MITCHELL receive 5.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 99% 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by CURRAN, J MITCHELL is 53 months. This places the examiner in the 3% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 14% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

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 1% 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.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 12% 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 13% percentile). This examiner rarely issues Quayle actions compared to other examiners. Allowances typically come directly without a separate action for formal matters.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.