Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17256615 | SPEAKER AND PORTABLE TERMINAL | August 2021 | May 2024 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17129617 | ACOUSTIC CUBE | December 2020 | June 2023 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17058799 | STATOR OF AN ELECTRICAL MACHINE, COMPRISING A TEMPERATURE SENSOR, AND ELECTRICAL MACHINE COMPRISING SUCH A STATOR | November 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 52 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17104280 | MODIFIED CROSS-SECTION FIBER AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME AND NONWOVEN FABRIC AND NOISE-ABSORBING AND -INSULATING MATERIAL COMPRISING MODIFIED CROSS-SECTION FIBER | November 2020 | April 2024 | Abandon | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16951292 | Gun Muzzle Sound Suppressor | November 2020 | June 2023 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16982462 | Exhaust Sound Bypass | September 2020 | January 2024 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16627667 | FIBER AGGREGATE FOR SOUND INSULATION, SOUND ABSORBING/INSULATING MATERIAL, AND SOUND ABSORBING/INSULATING MATERIAL FOR VEHICLE | August 2020 | July 2023 | Abandon | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16992370 | TRANSPARENT SOUND ABSORBING PANELS | August 2020 | May 2024 | Abandon | 46 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16988018 | FIREARM SUPPRESSOR WITH COMPONENTS OF TWO OR MORE MATERIALS | August 2020 | June 2025 | Allow | 58 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 16880828 | SOUND ABSORBING PANELS | May 2020 | October 2024 | Allow | 53 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16198714 | Retractable stethoscope | November 2018 | May 2025 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16031445 | ENGINE AIR INDUCTION RESISTIVE FOAM ELEMENT SOUND ABSORBER AND SILENCER | July 2018 | January 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner OLSON, JENNIFER MAR B.
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 OLSON, JENNIFER MAR B works in Art Unit 2837 and has examined 12 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 41.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 46 months.
Examiner OLSON, JENNIFER MAR B's allowance rate of 41.7% places them in the 9% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by OLSON, JENNIFER MAR B receive 2.58 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 72% 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 OLSON, JENNIFER MAR B is 46 months. This places the examiner in the 12% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +12.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by OLSON, JENNIFER MAR B. This interview benefit is in the 48% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 41% 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.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 28.6% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 42% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 25% percentile). This examiner makes examiner's amendments less often than average. You may need to make most claim amendments yourself.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 33% 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.