Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18754120 | Energy Management Method Based on Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning in Energy-Constrained Environments | June 2024 | September 2025 | Abandon | 15 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18649945 | METHOD, DEVICE AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM FOR IMPLEMENTING MAGNETIC CONFINEMENT REACTION | April 2024 | August 2025 | Abandon | 15 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 18528138 | THREE-DIMENSIONAL SIMULATION METHOD AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL SIMULATION APPARATUS | December 2023 | October 2025 | Abandon | 23 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18563404 | METHOD FOR DESIGNING CYLINDRICAL SKIVING TOOL WITHOUT GEOMETRIC RELIEF ANGLE | November 2023 | May 2025 | Abandon | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18222576 | INTEGRATED PROCESS-STRUCTURE-PROPERTY MODELING FRAMEWORKS AND METHODS FOR DESIGN OPTIMIZATION AND/OR PERFORMANCE PREDICTION OF MATERIAL SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS OF SAME | July 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17968150 | GENERATING SIMULATED WELD PATHS FOR A WELDING ROBOT | October 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 28 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17933054 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING AN INFILL GEOMETRY OF A BODY | September 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 32 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17933059 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING A PANEL INFILL GEOMETRY OF A SANDWICH PANEL | September 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 33 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17887628 | FUTURE PROOFING AND PROTOTYPING AN INTERNET OF THINGS NETWORK | August 2022 | November 2024 | Abandon | 28 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17868254 | STICTION CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONVENTIONAL VALVES | July 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17845283 | Method and System for Determining Ply-by-Ply Damage in a Composite Structure | June 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17828882 | HELICAL PATTERNING ON A CURVED SURFACE FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING OF A FRAGMENTATION DEVICE | May 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17676742 | ELECTRIC STIMULATION SIMULATION METHOD, SERVER, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR DETERMINING OPTIMAL STIMULATION POSITION COMBINATION | February 2022 | September 2025 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17633069 | CONSTRUCTION METHOD OF DIGITAL TWIN FOR STRUCTURE PERFORMANCE OF INTELLIGENT EXCAVATOR | February 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17620443 | RESIN BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS APPARATUS, RESIN BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS METHOD AND RESIN BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS PROGRAM | December 2021 | October 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17644233 | PREDICTING RESERVOIR COMPOSITION FROM MUDGAS LOGS | December 2021 | February 2026 | Abandon | 50 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17618442 | ANALYSIS DEVICE, ANALYSIS METHOD, AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM | December 2021 | February 2026 | Abandon | 50 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17615664 | DATA STRUCTURE, NUMERICAL CALCULATION METHOD, AND NUMERICAL CALCULATION PROGRAM | December 2021 | February 2026 | Abandon | 50 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17535851 | ADAPTIVE COMPRESSION OF SIMULATION DATA FOR VISUALIZATION | November 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 46 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17395119 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR GENERATING AN INSTANTANEOUS QUOTE OF ANY PART WITHOUT TOOLPATHING | August 2021 | March 2026 | Allow | 55 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17388515 | YOUNG’S MODULUS AND POISSON’S RATIO DETERMINATION IN OBJECTS OF ARBITRARY GEOMETRY SYSTEMS AND METHODS | July 2021 | December 2024 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17388771 | SELF-INTERSECTING LATTICE INCARNATION | July 2021 | June 2025 | Allow | 47 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17261260 | THE METHOD OF DETERMINING A PRODUCTION WELL FLOW PROFILE, INCLUDING DETERMINATION OF HYDRODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESERVOIR PAY ZONE | July 2021 | December 2024 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17424252 | COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN (CAD) BASED SENSOR DESIGN AND ANALYSIS | July 2021 | May 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17368318 | METHOD FOR EVALUATING ULTIMATE DEMAGNETIZATION TEMPERATURE OF MAGNET | July 2021 | February 2026 | Abandon | 56 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17337127 | SIMULATION FRAMEWORK FOR REAL TIME VEHICLE DISPATCHING ALGORITHMS EVALUATION | June 2021 | July 2025 | Abandon | 50 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17244313 | ACCURATE AND EFFICIENT NON LINEAR MODEL ORDER REDUCTION FOR ELECTRO-THERMAL ANALYSIS | April 2021 | February 2026 | Abandon | 57 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17225255 | ROBOTICALLY-ASSISTED SURGICAL SYSTEM, ROBOTICALLY-ASSISTED SURGICAL METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM | April 2021 | January 2026 | Abandon | 58 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17223657 | METHOD FOR DETERMINING A WELD DESIGN FOR A MULTI-WELD COMPONENT | April 2021 | November 2025 | Allow | 55 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17218641 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR OBTAINING DESIGN SCHEME OF COLLABORATIVELY OPTIMIZED INTEGRATED ENERGY SYSTEM | March 2021 | May 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17259249 | CAD COLLABORATIVE DESIGN SYSTEM | March 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 57 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17202489 | GENERATING STYLE GRAMMARS FOR GENERATIVE DESIGN | March 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17160696 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR BUILDING A LIGHTING ADAPTABLE MAP OF AN INDOOR SCENE AND USING IT FOR ESTIMATING AN UNKNOWN LIGHT SETTING | January 2021 | January 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17261227 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ASSESSING A CORONARY STENOSIS | January 2021 | May 2025 | Abandon | 52 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17117527 | COORDINATING CONVERSION BETWEEN FLOORPLAN USER INTERFACE LAYERS | December 2020 | September 2024 | Allow | 45 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17117931 | VIRTUAL GUIDANCE FOR ORTHOPEDIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES | December 2020 | March 2025 | Allow | 51 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15734913 | ANALYSIS DEVICE, ANALYSIS METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | December 2020 | January 2025 | Abandon | 50 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17073309 | METHOD OF DESIGNING A SWITCHGEAR WITH ARC-FLASH SIMULATION AND ENERGY TRANSMISSION THEREOF | October 2020 | August 2024 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17031091 | BLOCKAGE DETECTION USING MACHINE LEARNING | September 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 55 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16987820 | Computer System for Simulating Physical Process Using Lattice Boltzmann based Scalar Transport Enforcing Galilean Invariance for Scalar Transport | August 2020 | August 2024 | Allow | 48 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16651013 | MODELING COMPLEX BASIN FILL UTILIZING KNOWN SHORELINE DATA | March 2020 | March 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16739291 | Hybrid Attribute Reaction Model (ARM) in Molecule-Based EO Reactor (MB EORXR) | January 2020 | October 2025 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16695406 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING THE PANELIZATION OF A WALL | November 2019 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 9 | 0 | No | No |
| 16695946 | MODELING RESERVOIR PERMEABILITY THROUGH ESTIMATING NATURAL FRACTURE DISTRIBUTION AND PROPERTIES | November 2019 | October 2024 | Allow | 59 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16694498 | METHOD AND APPARATUS WITH SYSTEM VERIFICATION BASED ON REINFORCEMENT LEARNING | November 2019 | August 2024 | Allow | 57 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16683708 | Method and System of Providing Retention for Computer-Aided Design of Removable Objects | November 2019 | October 2024 | Allow | 59 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16653888 | SIMULATION SERVER CAPABLE OF CONFIGURING EVENTS OF A LESSON PLAN THROUGH INTERACTIONS WITH A COMPUTING DEVICE | October 2019 | November 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16556291 | DETERMINING OPTIMAL SIZE AND SHAPE OF ADDITIVE MANUFACTURED PACKAGING | August 2019 | October 2024 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16526774 | EVOLVED INFERENTIAL SENSORS FOR IMPROVED FAULT DETECTION AND ISOLATION | July 2019 | May 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16409652 | DETECTION AND QUANTIFICATION OF SAND FLOWS IN A BOREHOLE | May 2019 | October 2025 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16398716 | WELLBORE TRAJECTORY MODEL CALIBRATION FOR DIRECTIONAL DRILLING | April 2019 | July 2025 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16391885 | INTELLIGENT MONITORING FOR DRILLING PROCESS AUTOMATION | April 2019 | December 2025 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16194839 | COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS DESIGN VERIFICATION THROUGH DATABASE SYSTEMS FOR HARDWARE-BASED EMULATION PLATFORMS | November 2018 | September 2025 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 15757013 | MODELLING METHOD AND SYSTEM | March 2018 | January 2026 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 15741960 | Method And Apparatus For Production Logging Tool (PLT) Results Interpretation | January 2018 | February 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner COCCHI, MICHAEL EDWARD.
With a 66.7% 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, 57.1% 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 COCCHI, MICHAEL EDWARD works in Art Unit 2188 and has examined 41 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 46.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 55 months.
Examiner COCCHI, MICHAEL EDWARD's allowance rate of 46.3% places them in the 10% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by COCCHI, MICHAEL EDWARD receive 4.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 97% 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 COCCHI, MICHAEL EDWARD is 55 months. This places the examiner in the 2% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +59.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by COCCHI, MICHAEL EDWARD. This interview benefit is in the 96% 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, 13.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 8% 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 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.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 66.7% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 54% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. If you have strong arguments, a PAC request may result in favorable reconsideration.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 57.1% of appeals filed. This is in the 30% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 25.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 91% 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 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.