Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19030410 | DISPLAY SYSTEM AND POSITION INDICATING DEVICE | January 2025 | March 2026 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18597023 | USER TERMINAL DEVICE, SERVER, AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING DRIVER'S DRIVING INFORMATION USING THE SAME | March 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17767757 | DISPLAY SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY DEVICE | April 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 38 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 11437356 | REACTION ADVANTAGE ANTI-COLLISION SYSTEMS AND METHODS | May 2006 | October 2006 | Allow | 5 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 11296143 | METHOD AND SYSTEM TO CALCULATE AN APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF A MOBILE STATION IN A RECURRENT ROUTE | December 2005 | September 2007 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11110677 | SIGNAL ASSEMBLY | April 2005 | January 2007 | Allow | 21 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11110665 | AUTOMOBILE STEERING LOCK WITH AN ALARM UNIT | April 2005 | August 2007 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11097088 | VIBRATING DEVICE FOR THE TURN SIGNALS IN MOTORIZED VEHICLES | April 2005 | December 2006 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10998247 | POWER DISTRIBUTION AND TIMING DEVICE | November 2004 | August 2006 | Allow | 21 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10935258 | MULTI-BIT ENCODED GLASS-COATED MICROWIRE AND ARTICLES COMPOSED THEREOF | September 2004 | February 2007 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10910024 | CABLE PLOW INSTALLATION MONITOR METHOD AND APPARATUS | August 2004 | October 2006 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10856530 | LOCALIZED ACCIDENT NOTIFICATION | May 2004 | June 2006 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10750027 | STRIP LED LIGHT ASSEMBLY FOR MOTOR VEHICLE | December 2003 | December 2005 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10749591 | STRIP LED LIGHT ASSEMBLY FOR MOTOR VEHICLE | December 2003 | March 2006 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10481280 | CARGO CONTAINER HAVING AN AUDIO SYSTEM | December 2003 | July 2006 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10715291 | VEHICLE BRAKING ALERT SYSTEM | November 2003 | April 2006 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10706143 | PAPER ROLL ANTI-THEFT PROTECTION | November 2003 | October 2006 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10652090 | ANIMAL ACCIDENT REDUCTION SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUSES | August 2003 | May 2006 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10642910 | AUTOMATED ANTENNA TRIM FOR TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES | August 2003 | July 2008 | Allow | 59 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 10627478 | GRAFFITI DETECTION SYSTEM AND METHOD OF USING THE SAME | July 2003 | February 2006 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10422031 | PNEUMATIC TIRE MOUNTABLE ON A WHEEL RIM AND SENSOR NET, ROTATION MEASUREMENT UNIT AND VEHICLE MONITORING SYSTEM FOR SUCH TIRE | April 2003 | August 2006 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 2 | No | No |
| 10317919 | MASTER SIGNAL TRANSMITTER WITH ALLIED SERVANT RECEIVER TO RECEIVE A DIRECTED SIGNAL FROM THE TRANSMITTER | December 2002 | January 2006 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 10170013 | SHIPPING CONTAINER ALONG WITH SHIPPING METHOD EMPLOYING THE SAME | June 2002 | April 2006 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner LEE, BENJAMIN C.
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.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner LEE, BENJAMIN C works in Art Unit 2629 and has examined 20 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 100.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 29 months.
Examiner LEE, BENJAMIN C's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 96% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by LEE, BENJAMIN C receive 1.35 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 20% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by LEE, BENJAMIN C is 29 months. This places the examiner in the 64% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LEE, BENJAMIN C. This interview benefit is in the 14% 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, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 97% 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 60.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 85% 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 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 10% 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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 91% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 50.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 60.0% of allowed cases (in the 100% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 25% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may 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.