Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18421388 | VEHICLE SYSTEM AND STORAGE MEDIUM | January 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 16 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18087523 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MONITORING AND COMMUNICATING DATA ASSOCIATED WITH A PRODUCT/ITEM | December 2022 | February 2024 | Abandon | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17976825 | AUTOMATIC GATE SYSTEM FOR OPENING WHILE DRIVING THEREINTO | October 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17549135 | WIRELESS AUDIO DEVICE, SYSTEM AND METHOD | December 2021 | March 2024 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17219786 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS OF A TAMPER-EVIDENT SEAL | March 2021 | May 2024 | Abandon | 38 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16133135 | INTEGRATED SECURITY SYSTEM WITH PARALLEL PROCESSING ARCHITECTURE | September 2018 | November 2019 | Allow | 14 | 8 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 10730091 | VEHICLE ELECTRONIC KEY SYSTEM | December 2003 | November 2006 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10095403 | VEHICLE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | March 2002 | August 2006 | Allow | 53 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ZIMMERMAN, BRIAN A.
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.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner ZIMMERMAN, BRIAN A works in Art Unit 2686 and has examined 7 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 42.9%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 32 months.
Examiner ZIMMERMAN, BRIAN A's allowance rate of 42.9% places them in the 5% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by ZIMMERMAN, BRIAN A receive 3.14 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 ZIMMERMAN, BRIAN A is 32 months. This places the examiner in the 32% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 10.0% 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 0% 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, 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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 91% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 20.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 11% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 21% 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 27% 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.