Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18619562 | MODEL OBJECT FOR VISUALLY INDICATING OVER AND UNDER REMOVALS OF MATERIAL DURING A PROCEDURE | March 2024 | April 2025 | Abandon | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18224660 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SIMULATING WATER-INDUCED ROCK STRENGTH DETERIORATION BASED ON DISCRETE ELEMENT METHOD | July 2023 | May 2025 | Abandon | 22 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17482905 | OPTIMIZATION SUPPORT APPARATUS AND METHOD | September 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 48 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17480080 | MODEL OBJECT FOR VISUALLY INDICATING OVER AND UNDER REMOVALS OF MATERIAL DURING A PROCEDURE | September 2021 | April 2025 | Abandon | 43 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17414820 | OBJECT MANUFACTURING SIMULATION | June 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17315277 | ROBUST OPTIMIZATION DESIGN METHOD FOR MECHANICAL ARM BASED ON HYBRID INTERVAL AND BOUNDED PROBABILISTIC UNCERTAINTIES | May 2021 | April 2025 | Abandon | 48 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17287699 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | April 2021 | February 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17167999 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTONOMOUS MULTI-BIN PARCEL LOADING SYSTEM | February 2021 | March 2025 | Allow | 49 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17037239 | PREDICTING INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION NETWORK PERFORMANCE | September 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 50 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16754454 | CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT DEVICE, CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | April 2020 | February 2025 | Abandon | 58 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16653309 | METHOD FOR DETERMINING A PROCESS VARIABLE WITH A CLASSIFIER FOR SELECTING A MODEL FOR DETERMINING THE PROCESS VARIABLE | October 2019 | September 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16434793 | Asset Optimization Using Integrated Modeling, Optimization, and Artificial Intelligence | June 2019 | April 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16292664 | ADAPTABLE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS SYSTEMS AND METHODS | March 2019 | February 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16325184 | Fluid Production Network Leak Detection | February 2019 | September 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16257348 | SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR CORRECTING BUILD PARAMETERS IN AN ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING PROCESS BASED ON A THERMAL MODEL AND SENSOR DATA | January 2019 | September 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16184850 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR THE DIGITAL VERIFICATION OF INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION EXECUTION | November 2018 | May 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | No | No |
| 15914752 | EARTH-BORING TOOL MONITORING SYSTEM FOR SHOWING RELIABILITY OF AN EARTH-BORING TOOL AND RELATED METHODS | March 2018 | July 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner GIRI, PURSOTTAM.
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 GIRI, PURSOTTAM works in Art Unit 2188 and has examined 15 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 6.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 58 months.
Examiner GIRI, PURSOTTAM's allowance rate of 6.7% places them in the 1% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by GIRI, PURSOTTAM receive 3.73 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 96% 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 GIRI, PURSOTTAM is 58 months. This places the examiner in the 1% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +11.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by GIRI, PURSOTTAM. This interview benefit is in the 45% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 3.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 2% 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, 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 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.