Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18735405 | POINTER DISPLAY APPARATUS AND POINTER OPERATION CONTROL METHOD | June 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 17 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 18495865 | HOROLOGICAL COMPONENT RESULTING FROM THE ASSEMBLY OF TWO PARTS AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAID COMPONENT | October 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18481631 | HOROLOGICAL ASSEMBLY COMPRISING A BALANCE SPRING AND A STUD | October 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18472436 | SPIRAL SPRING FOR A HOROLOGICAL RESONATOR MECHANISM PROVIDED WITH MEANS FOR ADJUSTING THE STIFFNESS | September 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18450028 | HOROLOGICAL REGULATING MEMBER WITH BALANCE SPRING PROVIDED WITH PRESSURE-COMPENSATING MEANS | August 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18302304 | ACTUATION MECHANISM OF FLEXIBLE DISPLAY HAND DRIVEN BY A CLOCKWORK MOVEMENT | April 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17891372 | DETACHABLE WEARING MEMBER AND WEARABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING SAME | August 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17863664 | BRAKE SPRING FOR SUPPORTING ARBOR OF A DISPLAY, HOROLOGICAL MOVEMENT COMPRISING SAID BRAKE SPRING AND METHOD FOR INSTALLING SAID BRAKE SPRING | July 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17180927 | ELECTRONIC TIMEPIECE, WIRELESS DEVICE, WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, TIME CORRECTION METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY RECORDING MEDIUM | February 2021 | February 2026 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner JOHNSTON, KEVIN ANDREW works in Art Unit 2831 and has examined 1 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 10000 months.
Examiner JOHNSTON, KEVIN ANDREW's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 96% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by JOHNSTON, KEVIN ANDREW receive 4.00 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 JOHNSTON, KEVIN ANDREW is 10000 months. This places the examiner in the 0% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 38% 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.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 24% 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 31% 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.