Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16261947 | FLEXIBLE FILM AND DISPLAY APPARATUS HAVING THE SAME | January 2019 | March 2021 | Abandon | 26 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14863790 | INDUCTOR DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS | September 2015 | February 2016 | Allow | 5 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14520294 | CIRCUIT BOARD ASSEMBLY WITH PADS AND CONNECTION LINES HAVING SAME RESISTANCE VALUE AS THE PADS AND IMPEDANCE MATCHING METHOD | October 2014 | May 2016 | Abandon | 19 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 14273432 | ELECTRONIC COMPONENT MODULE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME | May 2014 | May 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 2 | Yes | No |
| 14267941 | CHIP ARRANGEMENT, CHIP CARD ARRANGEMENT AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A CHIP ARRANGEMENT | May 2014 | April 2019 | Abandon | 59 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 14219412 | CIRCUIT SUBSTRATE | March 2014 | February 2015 | Abandon | 11 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14217533 | NOISE SUPPRESSION DEVICE | March 2014 | June 2015 | Allow | 15 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14210159 | RADIO FREQUENCY FEEDTHROUGH | March 2014 | January 2015 | Abandon | 10 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14059809 | HEAT DISSIPATION STRUCTURE FOR MULTILAYER BOARD AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE STRUCTURE | October 2013 | February 2015 | Abandon | 15 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13996681 | PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD WITH AN INSULATED METAL SUBSTRATE | October 2013 | July 2016 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13761651 | MULTIPLE ELECTRICAL SOURCE HOUSING | February 2013 | September 2016 | Abandon | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13648853 | Enclosure | October 2012 | September 2016 | Abandon | 48 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13634660 | WIRE HARNESS AND METHOD FOR MAKING THE SAME | September 2012 | May 2016 | Abandon | 44 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 13555911 | CONDUCTIVE MEMBERS USING CARBON-BASED SUBSTRATE COATINGS | July 2012 | December 2016 | Abandon | 52 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13551073 | INSULATED WIRE, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, AND METHOD OF PRODUCING AN INSULATED WIRE | July 2012 | October 2016 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 13541619 | PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD AND METHOD OF FABRICATING THE SAME | July 2012 | August 2016 | Abandon | 50 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13458275 | TOUCH PANEL AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME | April 2012 | February 2014 | Abandon | 22 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13111971 | COMPUTER CASE | May 2011 | February 2015 | Abandon | 45 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13103021 | ASSEMBLED STRUCTURE OF ELECTRONIC COMPONENT AND HEAT-DISSIPATING DEVICE | May 2011 | December 2014 | Abandon | 43 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner THOMPSON, TIMOTHY J.
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 THOMPSON, TIMOTHY J works in Art Unit 2847 and has examined 19 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 10.5%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 43 months.
Examiner THOMPSON, TIMOTHY J's allowance rate of 10.5% places them in the 2% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by THOMPSON, TIMOTHY J receive 2.11 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 52% 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 THOMPSON, TIMOTHY J is 43 months. This places the examiner in the 17% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -11.8% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by THOMPSON, TIMOTHY J. This interview benefit is in the 3% 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, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 1% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 92% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 26% 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.