Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18414835 | APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR HIGH-ORDER SYSTEM GROWTH MODELING | January 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 17 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18058174 | FOLD LINE DESIGN METHOD, DESIGN DEVICE, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | November 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 50 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17865533 | OPC MODEL SIMULATION METHOD | July 2022 | September 2025 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17805406 | PROCESSING A CAD 3D MODEL OF A MECHANICAL PART | June 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17662664 | Recurrent Prediction and Iterative Correction Method for fast Solution of Mixed-Integer Optimal Control | May 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 46 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17662163 | MULTI-AGENT SIMULATION SYSTEM AND METHOD | May 2022 | July 2025 | Abandon | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17650271 | AIRCRAFT WIRE ROUTING TO ACCOUNT FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC DISTURBANCES | February 2022 | September 2025 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17586975 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SANDBAG DEPLOYMENT | January 2022 | September 2025 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17559319 | Physical Digital Twin Modeling Method And Apparatus For Assembly, Electronic Device And Medium | December 2021 | January 2026 | Allow | 49 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17547112 | MANAGING TRAINING WELLS FOR TARGET WELLS IN MACHINE LEARNING | December 2021 | September 2025 | Allow | 46 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17533335 | SEMICONDUCTOR FACILITY LAYOUT SIMULATION METHOD, COMPUTER SYSTEM AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | November 2021 | August 2025 | Allow | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17528984 | SIMULATION DEVICE, SIMULATION METHOD, AND PROGRAM | November 2021 | August 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17523746 | TECHNIQUES FOR COMPARING GEOMETRIC STYLES OF 3D CAD OBJECTS | November 2021 | January 2026 | Allow | 50 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17507750 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PREDICTING REMAINING USEFUL LIFE OF ANALOG CIRCUIT | October 2021 | July 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17500500 | COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM STORING DATA ESTIMATION PROGRAM AND DATA ESTIMATION METHOD | October 2021 | June 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17499402 | THERMAL MODELING OF ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING USING GRAPH THEORY | October 2021 | March 2025 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17440900 | COMPOSITE MATERIAL DESIGN DEVICE, COMPOSITE MATERIAL DESIGN METHOD, AND COMPOSITE MATERIAL DESIGN PROGRAM USING GENETIC ALGORITHM | September 2021 | May 2025 | Abandon | 43 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17463260 | FLUID MODELING WITH NANO-SCALE PORE SIZE EFFECTS FOR A RESERVOIR | August 2021 | April 2025 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17458728 | MULTI-LOCATIONAL FORECAST MODELING IN BOTH TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL DIMENSIONS | August 2021 | May 2025 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17412649 | DIGITAL TWIN SIMULATION OF EQUILIBRIUM STATE | August 2021 | August 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17412915 | PARALLEL PROCESSING DESIGNING DEVICE AND PARALLEL PROCESSING DESIGNING METHOD | August 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17412637 | MODIFYING A FINITE ELEMENT MESH | August 2021 | May 2025 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17411530 | METHOD FOR MAKING METALLOGENIC SERIES MAP OF MINERAL DEPOSIT | August 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17307974 | ESTIMATING EMISSIONS WITH VIRTUAL SENSOR MODELS | May 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17306538 | SYSTEM, METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR EFFICIENT DESIGN OF BUILDINGS | May 2021 | March 2025 | Allow | 46 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17226070 | PREDICTING METHOD OF WILDFIRE PROPAGATION AREAS AND SYSTEM THEREOF | April 2021 | November 2025 | Abandon | 56 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17210723 | INTEGRATING CALIBRATED MODELS WITH COMPUTATIONAL PHYSICS SIMULATIONS | March 2021 | June 2025 | Allow | 51 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16201864 | SIMULATION MODELING EXCHANGE | November 2018 | August 2023 | Allow | 56 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner HAGLER, JOHN DAVID works in Art Unit 2189 and has examined 20 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 55.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 46 months.
Examiner HAGLER, JOHN DAVID's allowance rate of 55.0% places them in the 16% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by HAGLER, JOHN DAVID receive 1.60 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 30% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by HAGLER, JOHN DAVID is 46 months. This places the examiner in the 11% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +25.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HAGLER, JOHN DAVID. This interview benefit is in the 72% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 40.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 91% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 66.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 90% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 72% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.
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.