Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18433811 | SECURITY CONTAINER STATUS REMINDER AND ALERTING MODULE | February 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18405015 | Apparatuses, Systems and Methods for Determining Distracted Drivers Associated With Vehicle Driving Routes | January 2024 | September 2025 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18402741 | WATERPROOF DISTRESS ALARM DEVICE | January 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18575416 | INFORMATION PROCESSOR AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | December 2023 | March 2026 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18522790 | SMART PLATFORM FOR PROGRAMMING KEYLESS REMOTE DEVICES | November 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18368367 | SENSOR POWERED BY ITEM OF MERCHANDISE FOR RETAIL SECURITY | September 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18464228 | UNSAFE TRANSPORT OPERATION | September 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 21 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18461010 | HOUSING FOR A SCATTERED LIGHT DETECTION UNIT OF A SMOKE DETECTION DEVICE | September 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18548357 | HAPTIC GUIDING SYSTEM | August 2023 | September 2025 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18450326 | METHODS AND APPARATUS TO VALIDATE DATA COMMUNICATED BY A VEHICLE | August 2023 | July 2025 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18139357 | METHOD AND SYSTEMS OF MOBILE DATA PROCESSING DEVICE BASED REMOTE MONITORING OF A FIREFIGHTER AIR REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM PROVIDING ACCESS TO BREATHABLE AIR | April 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17897150 | LOSS PREVENTION OF RANGEFINDER DEVICES | August 2022 | December 2025 | Abandon | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17863312 | INDEX OF EVERYDAY LIFE | July 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 34 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16999719 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A RFID ENABLED METAL LICENSE PLATE | August 2020 | September 2025 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16560645 | Tactile Feedback Guidance Device | September 2019 | January 2020 | Allow | 5 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16164924 | IDENTIFICATIOIN OF FILTER MEDIA WITHIN A FILTRATION SYSTEM | October 2018 | January 2020 | Abandon | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16031167 | CHILD SEAT ALARM | July 2018 | October 2019 | Allow | 15 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15923572 | SYSTEM FOR THE AUTOMATIC DEPLOYMENT OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS DURING A POWER OUTAGE | March 2018 | December 2018 | Allow | 9 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15915875 | Tactile Feedback Guidance Device | March 2018 | June 2019 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15907016 | ION MEASURING DEVICE | February 2018 | May 2018 | Allow | 3 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15870555 | VEHICLE PROXIMITY INDICATOR | January 2018 | September 2018 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15869853 | SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR SOILED GARMENT DETECTION AND NOTIFICATION | January 2018 | November 2018 | Allow | 10 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15644979 | SAFETY APPARATUSES AND METHODS | July 2017 | December 2018 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15644999 | Internet Protocol Monitor Security Apparatus and Methods | July 2017 | July 2018 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15606547 | VEHICLE WARNING LIGHT SYSTEM | May 2017 | June 2019 | Allow | 25 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15586573 | DETERMINING A PARKING POSITION BASED ON VISUAL AND NON-VISUAL FACTORS | May 2017 | December 2017 | Allow | 7 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15341783 | WATER SAFETY MONITORING DEVICES, ALARM DEVICES AND RELATED METHODS | November 2016 | January 2019 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15158979 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IMPACT PREDICTION AND PROXIMITY WARNING | May 2016 | September 2018 | Allow | 28 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14439445 | SYSTEM AND A METHOD FOR REAL TIME DETECTION OF THE POSITION AND BEHAVIOR OF A PLURALITY OF ANIMALS | April 2015 | March 2019 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14359257 | ACTIVE AUTOMATED ANTI-BOARDING DEVICE AND MARITIME ASSET SECURITY SYSTEM | May 2014 | December 2017 | Allow | 43 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12537873 | CIRCUIT BREAKER LOCATOR | August 2009 | September 2012 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12537467 | LARGE CURRENT CARRYING CAPACITOR HAVING A THERMAL DISCONNECT WITH A LIGHT INDICATOR | August 2009 | January 2013 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12537878 | AC VOLTAGE PHASE DISCRIMINATOR FOR CIRCUIT BREAKER LOCATORS | August 2009 | September 2012 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12537190 | CLOSED-LOOP MONITORING SYSTEM | August 2009 | July 2012 | Allow | 35 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 11497047 | System and method for mental impairment determination using reaction time test | August 2006 | July 2014 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner WANG, JACK K.
With a 50.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is above the USPTO average, indicating that appeals have better success here than typical.
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, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.
✓ 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 WANG, JACK K works in Art Unit 2686 and has examined 22 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 90.9%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 25 months.
Examiner WANG, JACK K's allowance rate of 90.9% places them in the 75% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by WANG, JACK K receive 1.86 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 44% 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 WANG, JACK K is 25 months. This places the examiner in the 79% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -14.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by WANG, JACK K. This interview benefit is in the 2% 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, 26.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 43% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 50.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 75% 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, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 95% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 18% 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 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 47% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 23% 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 29% 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.