Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16072702 | 3D NONCONTACT HUMIDITY SENSING TECHNOLOGIES AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF | July 2018 | February 2020 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15792491 | METHOD OF TESTING CABLE SHIELD PERFORMANCE | October 2017 | February 2020 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15730859 | Electrical Current Connector | October 2017 | February 2020 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 14361452 | DEVICE FOR TRIGGERING AN ACTION ON AN OPENING PANEL OF A MOTOR VEHICLE | May 2014 | March 2020 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13700232 | SWITCH DETECTION SYSTEM | December 2012 | May 2015 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13632414 | ELECTRICAL SAFETY DEVICES AND SYSTEMS FOR USE WITH ELECTRICAL WIRING, AND METHODS FOR USING SAME | October 2012 | February 2014 | Allow | 17 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13351313 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR TESTING DRIVER WRITEABILITY STRENGTH ON AN INTEGRATED CIRCUIT | January 2012 | November 2014 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13307147 | CABLE IDENTIFICATION USING A UNIQUE SIGNAL CARRIED ON AN EXTERNAL CONDUCTOR | November 2011 | July 2014 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13307046 | CABLE IDENTIFICATION USING A UNIQUE SIGNAL CARRIED ON AN UNUSED CONDUCTOR | November 2011 | July 2014 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13278478 | AUTOMATICALLY BALANCED SENSING DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MULTIPLE CAPACITIVE SENSORS | October 2011 | June 2014 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 13224553 | METHODS AND DEVICES FOR SENSING CORROSION UNDER INSULATION (CUI) | September 2011 | April 2014 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13147025 | SENSOR FOR MEASURING THE CONCENTRATION OF A SOLVENT OR SOLUTE IN A MIXED SOLUTION SYSTEM | July 2011 | November 2014 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13010319 | DEVICE FOR THE CONTACT-LESS DETECTION OF THE DEGREE OF DRYNESS OF A COAT OF VARNISH, AND METHOD FOR THE SAME | January 2011 | November 2013 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12952524 | ELECTRICAL SAFETY DEVICES AND SYSTEMS FOR USE WITH ELECTRICAL WIRING, AND METHODS FOR USING SAME | November 2010 | July 2013 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12862654 | METHOD AND APPARATUS TO SELECT A PARAMETER/MODE BASED ON A TIME MEASUREMENT | August 2010 | January 2014 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12851439 | Method and Apparatus for Nondestructive Measuring of a Coating Thickness on a Curved Surface | August 2010 | July 2013 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12298389 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR MULTICHANNEL MULTIFREQUENCY ANALYSIS OF AN OBJECT | May 2010 | February 2014 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 12426956 | OIL MONITORING SYSTEM | April 2009 | December 2010 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11478483 | METHOD FOR USING INTERNAL SEMICONDUCTOR JUNCTIONS TO AID IN NON-CONTACT TESTING | June 2006 | April 2007 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11394686 | RE-CALCULATING S-PARAMETER ERROR TERMS AFTER MODIFICATION OF A CALIBRATED PORT | March 2006 | April 2007 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11376026 | DC & AC COUPLED E-FIELD SENSOR | March 2006 | September 2007 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10516690 | INSTANTANEOUS VOLTAGE LOWERING DETECTION DEVICE | December 2004 | November 2005 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10708699 | POWER SOURCE TEST INSTRUMENT | March 2004 | June 2005 | Allow | 15 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10772395 | COIL-ON PLUG CAPACITIVE SENSORS AND PASSIVE COIL-ON PLUG DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM INCORPORATING SAME | February 2004 | November 2005 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 10741490 | METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE INTERNAL IMPEDANCE OF A BATTERY CELL IN A STRING OF SERIALLY CONNECTED BATTERY CELLS | December 2003 | March 2005 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10695866 | OIL DETERIORATION DETECTION APPARATUS | October 2003 | August 2005 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10659216 | TECHNIQUES TO TEST TRANSMITTED SIGNAL INTEGRITY | September 2003 | December 2005 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10467720 | ADJACENT CHANNEL LEAKAGE POWER RATIO MEASURING APPARATUS, CHANNEL POWER MEASURING APPARATUS METHOD, PROGRAM, AND RECORDING MEDIUM WITH RECORDING THE PROGRAM | August 2003 | April 2006 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10635395 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MEASURING A DEVICE UNDER TEST USING AN IMPROVED THROUGH-REFLECT-LINE MEASUREMENT CALIBRATION | August 2003 | September 2005 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 10607022 | SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING THE TEMPERATURE OF AN AIRCRAFT AIRFOIL COMPONENT | June 2003 | February 2005 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10606580 | IMPROVED PLL MANUFACTURING TEST APPARATUS | June 2003 | December 2005 | Allow | 30 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10425625 | PLANAR CAPACITIVE TRANSDUCER | April 2003 | September 2004 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10423197 | SPACE-SAVING TEST STRUCTURES HAVING IMPROVED CAPABILITIES | April 2003 | March 2005 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10411803 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR VERTICAL VOLTAGE POTENTIAL MAPPING | April 2003 | November 2004 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10374500 | SENSOR OUTPUT PROCESSING DEVICE HAVING SELF-DIAGNOSIS FUNCTION | February 2003 | May 2005 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10347444 | METHOD OF DETECTING PLASTICS ARTICLES, AND A DETECTOR DEVICE | January 2003 | August 2004 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner NATALINI, JEFF WILLIAM.
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 NATALINI, JEFF WILLIAM works in Art Unit 2818 and has examined 36 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 27 months.
Examiner NATALINI, JEFF WILLIAM's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 97% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by NATALINI, JEFF WILLIAM receive 1.64 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 29% 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 NATALINI, JEFF WILLIAM is 27 months. This places the examiner in the 72% 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 NATALINI, JEFF WILLIAM. This interview benefit is in the 16% 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, 37.9% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 87% 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 62.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 88% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 92% percentile among all examiners. 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, 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 11.1% of allowed cases (in the 95% 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 5.6% of allowed cases (in the 84% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.
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.