Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18884163 | VISUAL TIMER | September 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18515443 | HOROLOGICAL MOVEMENT COMPRISING A DISPLAY CORRECTION MECHANISM | November 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 26 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18508304 | CHRONOGRAPH MECHANISM FOR A HOROLOGICAL MOVEMENT AND TIMEPIECE COMPRISING SUCH A MECHANISM | November 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 27 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18559785 | CONSTANT-ENERGY ESCAPEMENT FOR TIMEPIECE | November 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18503257 | SYSTEM FOR ADJUSTING AN ILLUMINATION FUNCTION OF A WATCH | November 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18501645 | WINDING DEVICE, IN PARTICULAR FOR A CLOCK BARREL, PROVIDED WITH DISCONNECTION MEANS | November 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18500284 | MONOLITHIC PART FOR ATTACHING A TIMEPIECE COMPONENT ON A SUPPORT ELEMENT | November 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18498211 | FASTENING ELEMENT FOR TIMEPIECES | October 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18496891 | ADAPTIVE ALARM MANAGEMENT IN AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE | October 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 27 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18496476 | INFORMATION DISPLAY MECHANISM, TIMEPIECE MOVEMENT, AND TIMEPIECE | October 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18287592 | DEVICE FOR MAINTAINING OR LIMITING THE SHAKE OF A TIMEPIECE COMPONENT | October 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18476552 | MECHANISM FOR DISPLAYING PERIODS OF AN ANNUAL CYCLE OF A TIMEPIECE | September 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18368259 | ELECTRONIC TIMEPIECE, STORAGE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM, AND TIME CORRECTION METHOD | September 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18331672 | METHOD FOR OPTIMISING AN OPERATION OF SETTING AND WINDING A WATCH, AND DEVICE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SAME | June 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17815708 | DIAPHRAGM TYPE DEPLOYMENT DEVICE, PARTICULARLY FOR WATCHMAKING | July 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17779404 | CONNECTING RING FOR A TIMEPIECE DIAL, PLATE AND TIMEPIECE DIAL, ASSEMBLY METHOD | May 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16861108 | WATCH WINDING APPARATUS FOR WINDING A WRIST WATCH AND METHOD THEREOF | April 2020 | May 2021 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16452140 | TIMEPIECE ILLUSION DEVICE | June 2019 | March 2020 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16432109 | WATCH HAVING AN INTERCHANGEABLE BEZEL | June 2019 | December 2021 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15918390 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND RECEIVING DEVICE | March 2018 | August 2020 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15910528 | ELECTRONIC TIMEPIECE | March 2018 | January 2020 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15577291 | WATCH-TYPE MOBILE TERMINAL AND OPERATION METHOD THEREOF | November 2017 | April 2020 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15372191 | METHOD OF FABRICATION OF A BLACK WATCH DIAL, AND SAID BLACK WATCH DIAL | December 2016 | December 2019 | Abandon | 36 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 14011795 | TIMEPIECE TO DISPLAY A VALUE OF A TIME UNIT | August 2013 | March 2015 | Allow | 18 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14000148 | TIME COUNTER TIMEPIECE | August 2013 | March 2015 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13790858 | CLOCKS WITH UNIQUELY DRIVEN ELEMENTS WHICH ARE INTERPRETED BY THE USE OF TRADITIONAL CLOCK INTERPRETATION METHODS | March 2013 | June 2014 | Allow | 15 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13312523 | HYBRID DIGITAL - ANALOG TIME DISPLAYS | December 2011 | April 2013 | Allow | 16 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13246913 | INTERVAL TIMING DEVICE | September 2011 | June 2014 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13236798 | APPARATUS FOR MAKING ASTRONOMICAL CALCULATIONS | September 2011 | May 2014 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13223965 | TIMED VIBRATING SYSTEM FOR REMINDERS AND HABIT PROGRAMMING | September 2011 | January 2014 | Allow | 28 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12911205 | TOUCH SCREEN WATCH | October 2010 | January 2014 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12741506 | MECHANICAL WATCH HAVING CONSTANT SPRING FORCE | June 2010 | May 2013 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12700675 | TALKING WATCH DEVICE | February 2010 | September 2013 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12540608 | DEVICE INCORPORATING BOTH TIME KEEPING AND STATIC ADJUSTMENT DIALS FOR DETERMINING FEEDING TIMES AND POSITION | August 2009 | July 2011 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12519901 | MECHANICAL OSCILLATOR FOR TIMEPIECE | June 2009 | April 2012 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12381651 | SUNRISE ALARM CLOCK | March 2009 | August 2014 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12337959 | CHRONOGRAPH MECHANISM, TIMEPIECE MOVEMENT AND TIMEPIECE COMPRISING SUCH A MECHANISM | December 2008 | July 2009 | Allow | 7 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12315524 | TIMING SYSTEM AND DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MAKING THE SAME | December 2008 | April 2011 | Allow | 28 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12171104 | TIME ADJUSTMENT DEVICE, TIMEKEEPING DEVICE WITH A TIME ADJUSTMENT DEVICE, AND A TIME ADJUSTMENT METHOD | July 2008 | April 2010 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12056668 | CORRECTION DEVICE FOR TIMEPIECE DISPLAY MECHANISM AND WHEEL FITTED THERETO | March 2008 | January 2011 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12078161 | TIMEPIECE HAVING OPENABLE AND CLOSABLE DIAL PLATE | March 2008 | April 2009 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12039252 | PIEZOELECTRIC DRIVE DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE | February 2008 | January 2011 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 12035266 | CHRONOGRAPH WATCH | February 2008 | December 2010 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11911363 | TIMEPIECE COMPRISING A ROTATING BEZEL | October 2007 | September 2011 | Allow | 47 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11667176 | MULTIFUNCTIONAL CLOCK CAPABLE OF REALIZING PLURALITY OF MOVEMENT LAYOUTS | May 2007 | June 2009 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11676266 | Instrument Case Assemblies | February 2007 | September 2008 | Abandon | 19 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11585818 | STRUCTURE FOR RETAINING MAGNETS RELATIVE TO STATOR IN ELECTRIC TOOL | October 2006 | February 2009 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11504164 | WATCH CASE INCLUDING A STRAP CLASP | August 2006 | June 2009 | Allow | 34 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 11471037 | COMPACT DISK DEVICE AND DISK DRIVE | June 2006 | March 2009 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11404625 | DRIVING DEVICE | April 2006 | July 2010 | Allow | 51 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 11344585 | STATOR COIL ASSEMBLY | January 2006 | September 2009 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner COLLINS, JASON M.
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 COLLINS, JASON M works in Art Unit 2831 and has examined 35 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 94.3%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 29 months.
Examiner COLLINS, JASON M's allowance rate of 94.3% places them in the 82% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by COLLINS, JASON M receive 1.89 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 45% 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 COLLINS, JASON M 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 +7.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by COLLINS, JASON M. This interview benefit is in the 36% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 32.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 67% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 63.6% 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 93% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 36.4% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 24% 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 5.7% of allowed cases (in the 87% 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 6.1% of allowed cases (in the 83% 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.