Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18709143 | DRIVING ASSISTANCE DEVICE AND COMPUTER PROGRAM | May 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18631537 | EXTENDABLE BUMPER EXTENSION SYSTEM AND METHOD | April 2024 | March 2026 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18580400 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CONTROLLING IN-VEHICLE SIGNAGE | January 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18540955 | INTERNET OF THINGS (IOT) DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANAGING PROVISIONING OF ONE OR MORE UNIVERSAL INTEGRATED CIRCUIT CARDS (UICCs) | December 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 25 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18377010 | BATTERY-POWERED CONTROL DEVICE CONFIGURED TO DETECT PERSISTENT ACTUATION | October 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 17 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18471283 | LOAD MANAGEMENT USING RANGING | September 2023 | February 2025 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18458336 | SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF PASSENGERS IN A VEHICLE, VEHICLE, AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF PASSENGERS IN A VEHICLE | August 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18363280 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DETERMINING THE WEAR OF A BRAKE | August 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18265394 | INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, AND PASSAGE MANAGEMENT METHOD | June 2023 | April 2025 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18196969 | FIRE ALARM SYSTEM WITH VISUAL VERIFICATION | May 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 33 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 18307694 | SYSTEM, APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR RECOGNIZING SURGICAL ARTICLES LEFT INSIDE PATIENTS | April 2023 | September 2025 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 18249978 | METHOD FOR DETECTING CHANGES IN AN AREA TO BE MONITORED | April 2023 | July 2025 | Abandon | 27 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18026557 | ROTATING MECHANISM AND FOLDABLE TERMINAL | March 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17999489 | A GAME SCORING APPARATUS | November 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17971983 | ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-BASED TIMING, IMAGING, AND TRACKING SYSTEM FOR THE PARTICIPATORY ATHLETIC EVENT MARKET | October 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17958410 | MULTI-FUNCTIONAL TAG FOR THROUGHOUT THE PLANT LIFE CYCLE | October 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17651819 | ADAPTIVE ALERT MESSAGING | February 2022 | March 2026 | Abandon | 49 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17465684 | MAGNETIC DISK DEVICE AND METHOD | September 2021 | April 2023 | Abandon | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17333017 | MAGNETIC TAPE DEVICE WITH CHARACTERIZED MAGNETIC TAPE WINDING TENSION AND CUPPING AMOUNT, MAGNETIC TAPE, AND MAGNETIC TAPE CARTRIDGE | May 2021 | January 2023 | Abandon | 20 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17298127 | Parking Assistance System for Carrying Out Automated Maneuvers of Various Types Assisted by the System, With a User Interface | May 2021 | February 2026 | Abandon | 57 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17331651 | MAGNETIC TAPE DEVICE HAVING CHARACTERIZED REWINDING TENSION AND TAPE CURVATURE, MAGNETIC TAPE, AND MAGNETIC TAPE CARTRIDGE | May 2021 | January 2023 | Abandon | 20 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17166198 | MULTI-SPEED HARD DISK DRIVE | February 2021 | July 2023 | Abandon | 30 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16819606 | PUNCH RIVET SUPPLY DEVICE AND PUNCH RIVETING DEVICE | March 2020 | July 2021 | Abandon | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16724244 | Electronic Water Distribution Center With Electronic Drain Network | December 2019 | August 2024 | Abandon | 56 | 1 | 2 | Yes | No |
| 16719577 | Automobile Accident Detection and Notification | December 2019 | May 2021 | Abandon | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16085911 | PREDICTIVE, INTEGRATED AND INTELLIGENT SYSTEM FOR CONTROL OF TIMES IN TRAFFIC LIGHTS | September 2018 | May 2021 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16112393 | INTEGRATED HOME LIGHTING AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM | August 2018 | January 2021 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15921558 | DOOR CONTROL UNIT | March 2018 | August 2020 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13858004 | SPIN-TORQUE OSCILLATOR (STO) WITH ANTIPARALLEL-COUPLED FREE FERROMAGNETIC LAYERS AND MAGNETIC DAMPING | April 2013 | October 2013 | Allow | 7 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12796425 | ELECTRONIC DOOR LOCK FOR REDUCED POWER CONSUMPTION | June 2010 | September 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 10 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11233996 | MOBILE TERMILE CAPABLE OF EFFICIENTLY MEASURING CNIR AND CNIR MEASURING METHOD THEREOF | September 2005 | May 2008 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10954897 | METHOD FOR GENERATING BETTER THAN ROOT RAISED COSINE ORTHOGONAL FREQUENCY DIVISION MULTIPLEXING (BTRRC OFDM) | September 2004 | February 2008 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner LIM, STEVEN.
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 LIM, STEVEN works in Art Unit 2688 and has examined 15 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 26.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 29 months.
Examiner LIM, STEVEN's allowance rate of 26.7% places them in the 3% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by LIM, STEVEN receive 2.13 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 57% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by LIM, STEVEN is 29 months. This places the examiner in the 65% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -30.8% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LIM, STEVEN. This interview benefit is in the 1% 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, 7.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 3% 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 2% 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.
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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 4% 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 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.