Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18751496 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PREDICTING SERVICE LIFE OF STEEL BOX GIRDER, DEVICE, AND MEDIUM | June 2024 | June 2025 | Abandon | 12 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18718605 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EXCESS GAS UTILIZATION | June 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 17 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18620257 | METHOD FOR IMPROVING UNCONVENTIONAL HYDROGEN DEVELOPMENT | March 2024 | March 2025 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18373215 | COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN SYSTEM FOR AIRBORNE CONTAMINANT FLOWS | September 2023 | September 2024 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18045144 | Method and Apparatus for design a PDN of an assembly of VRM-Board-Decoupling-Package-Chip | October 2022 | December 2024 | Abandon | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17764529 | Method and Apparatus for Simulating Integrated Energy System, and Computer-Readable Storage Medium | March 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17691148 | METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPONTANEOUS IMBIBITION VOLUME AND TIME OF POROUS MEDIUM | March 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 47 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17621721 | PREDICTION DEVICE, PREDICTION METHOD, AND PREDICTION PROGRAM | December 2021 | November 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17644114 | LATENT VECTOR AR MODELING AND FEATURE ANALYSIS OF DATA WITH REDUCED DYNAMIC DIMENSIONS | December 2021 | November 2025 | Abandon | 48 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17643039 | POWER PREDICTION DEVICE AND POWER PREDICTION METHOD | December 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17473547 | MONITORING DEVICE, DISPLAY DEVICE, MONITORING METHOD AND MONITORING PROGRAM | September 2021 | October 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17437872 | CREATION OF DIGITAL TWIN OF THE INTERACTION AMONG PARTS OF THE PHYSICAL SYSTEM | September 2021 | July 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17438363 | OPTIMAL LOAD CURTAILMENT CALCULATING METHOD BASED ON LAGRANGE MULTIPLIER AND APPLICATION THEREOF | September 2021 | November 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17386674 | MODEL ORDER REDUCTION OF PHYSICAL SYSTEMS | July 2021 | May 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17385261 | INTER-KERNEL DATAFLOW ANALYSIS AND DEADLOCK DETECTION | July 2021 | July 2025 | Allow | 48 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17384021 | Simulated Data Center | July 2021 | August 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17381056 | CENTRALIZED AI-BASED TOPOLOGY PROCESS FOR DIFFERENTIAL PROTECTION OF A POWER SUBSTATION | July 2021 | October 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17378118 | GENERATING TECHNOLOGY ENVIRONMENTS FOR A SOFTWARE APPLICATION | July 2021 | September 2025 | Allow | 50 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17324718 | ADVANCED SIMULATION MANAGEMENT TOOL FOR A MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEM | May 2021 | July 2025 | Allow | 50 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17192604 | Simulating Quantum Systems with Quantum Computation | March 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 55 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17182538 | RESOURCE PREDICTION SYSTEM FOR EXECUTING MACHINE LEARNING MODELS | February 2021 | August 2025 | Allow | 53 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17132650 | Designing A Mechanism | December 2020 | August 2024 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17251164 | METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE GEOMETRY OF AN AREA OF A RESERVOIR | December 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 53 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17247399 | DYNAMIC WELL CONSTRUCTION MODEL | December 2020 | April 2025 | Allow | 52 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17091411 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ELECTRONIC SYSTEM COMPONENT DETERMINATION AND SELECTION | November 2020 | August 2024 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17028900 | NON-LINEAR CHARACTERISTIC CALCULATING METHOD, NON-LINEAR CHARACTERISTIC CALCULATING PROGRAM, METHOD FOR USING SAME, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | September 2020 | February 2025 | Allow | 53 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17024529 | SIMULATION CORRECTION USING MEASUREMENTS AND DEEP LEARNING | September 2020 | March 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16496029 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SIMULATING CONTACT BETWEEN WHEEL AND RAIL FOR DETECTING ADHESION VALUES | September 2019 | January 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16082422 | SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT CREATION | September 2018 | November 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15769337 | METHOD AND APPARATUS TO CORRECT FOR PATTERNING PROCESS ERROR | April 2018 | September 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner WECHSELBERGER, ALFRED H..
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 WECHSELBERGER, ALFRED H. works in Art Unit 2187 and has examined 23 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 34.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 50 months.
Examiner WECHSELBERGER, ALFRED H.'s allowance rate of 34.8% places them in the 6% 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 3.09 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 88% 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 50 months. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +50.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by WECHSELBERGER, ALFRED H.. This interview benefit is in the 93% 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, 18.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 17% 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 7.1% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 7% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 1% 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.