Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18955880 | METHOD FOR DESIGNING SUPERCRITICAL HEAT EXCHANGER BASED ON PSEUDO-PHASE TRANSITION PARTITION | November 2024 | December 2025 | Abandon | 13 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18662714 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING SOLAR ACCESS OF A STRUCTURE | May 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 17 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18412440 | COMPUTER VISION AND SPEECH ALGORITHM DESIGN SERVICE | January 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18297590 | THREE-DIMENSIONAL TOOTH MODELING USING AN ESTIMATION OF AN IMAGING PROCESS OF AN X-RAY IMAGING DEVICE | April 2023 | July 2025 | Allow | 28 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17973227 | METHOD OF TRANSMISSION MECHANISM DESIGN | October 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 39 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17859414 | WATER INVASION-ORIENTED DYNAMIC PRODUCTION ALLOCATION METHOD FOR WATER-BEARING CARBONATITE GAS RESERVOIR | July 2022 | November 2025 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17781269 | Movement Demand Estimation and People Flow Estimation Systems and Methods | May 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17772822 | Impact Calculation Apparatus and Impact Calculation Method | April 2022 | March 2026 | Abandon | 46 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17755239 | METHOD FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURING AND MITIGATING PROPPANT FLOWBACK | April 2022 | September 2025 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17754582 | MACHINE LEARNING APPROACHES TO DETECTING PRESSURE ANOMALIES | April 2022 | September 2025 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17712820 | System and Method to Develop Naturally Fractured Hydrocarbon Reservoirs Using A Fracture Density Index | April 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17631590 | WELL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY GRAPH BUILDER | January 2022 | December 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17574036 | MACHINE LEARNING APPROACH TO PIECEWISE LINEAR INTERFACE CONSTRUCTION | January 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 45 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17596465 | Design Method, Design Device, and Program for Regenerator Utilizing Energy Conversion by an Oscillating Flow | December 2021 | March 2026 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17610074 | METHOD FOR MODELLING THE FORMATION OF A SEDIMENTARY BASIN USING A STRATIGRAPHIC FORWARD MODELING PROGRAM | November 2021 | December 2025 | Allow | 49 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17518478 | AUTOMATION TOOL TO CREATE CHRONOLOGICAL AC POWER FLOW CASES FOR LARGE INTERCONNECTED SYSTEMS | November 2021 | November 2025 | Allow | 48 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17487598 | Tessellation and Connection System for Space Assembly of Modular Units | September 2021 | August 2025 | Allow | 47 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17284359 | METHOD FOR DETECTING SAFETY-RELEVANT DATA STREAMS | April 2021 | August 2025 | Allow | 52 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17257592 | ENDOVASCULAR IMPLANT DECISION SUPPORT IN MEDICAL IMAGING | January 2021 | March 2026 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16959470 | SYSTEM FOR POWER PLANT MANAGEMENT AND DEVICE FOR BUILDING 3D VIRTUAL MODEL OF POWER PLANT | July 2020 | January 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12911991 | NUMERICAL ANALYSIS DATA EVALUATION APPARATUS AND THERMAL FLUID PRESSURE DATA EVALUATION APPARATUS USING THE SAME | October 2010 | February 2013 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner HANN, JAY B.
With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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, 100.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
✓ Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner HANN, JAY B works in Art Unit 2186 and has examined 8 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 75.0%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 51 months.
Examiner HANN, JAY B's allowance rate of 75.0% places them in the 40% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by HANN, JAY B receive 2.62 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 77% 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 HANN, JAY B is 51 months. This places the examiner in the 4% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -33.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HANN, JAY B. This interview benefit is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. Note: Interviews show limited statistical benefit with this examiner compared to others, though they may still be valuable for clarifying issues.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 12.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 7% 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 42.9% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 65% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 7% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 16% 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.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 13% 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 15% 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.