Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17118803 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE WITH FULL-DISPLAY | December 2020 | July 2022 | Abandon | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17068600 | INTERPOSER USING INCLINED ELECTRODE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF | October 2020 | June 2022 | Abandon | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16840356 | Sensor Network Node System With Energy Harvesting Pickup/Receiver | April 2020 | January 2022 | Abandon | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16491978 | MAINBOARD FOR CONSUMER ELECTRONIC PRODUCT, AND TERMINAL | September 2019 | June 2022 | Abandon | 34 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12862338 | PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME | August 2010 | August 2014 | Allow | 47 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11590349 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MEASURING AND MONITORING LAYER PROPERTIES IN WEB-BASED PROCESSES | October 2006 | August 2012 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 11475303 | HIGH SENSITIVITY SINGLE OR MULTI SENSOR INTERFACE CIRCUIT WITH CONSTANT VOLTAGE OPERATION | June 2006 | August 2007 | Allow | 14 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 11431704 | METHOD OF TESTING DOCUMENTS PROVIDED WITH OPTICO-DIFFRACTIVELY EFFECTIVE MARKINGS | May 2006 | June 2007 | Allow | 13 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11360727 | TESTING DEVICE AND METHOD OF TESTING INSULATED HANDLES USED FOR SERVICING HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES | February 2006 | October 2006 | Allow | 7 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 11005731 | CAPACITIVE SENSOR | December 2004 | July 2005 | Allow | 7 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10985313 | METHOD FOR DETECTING DEFECTS THAT EXHIBIT REPETITIVE PATTERNS | November 2004 | October 2005 | Allow | 11 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10967877 | VECTOR NETWORK ANALYZER WITH INDEPENDENTLY TUNED RECEIVERS CHARACTERIZES FREQUENCY TRANSLATION DEVICES | October 2004 | May 2007 | Allow | 30 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 10794426 | NOVEL MICROWAVE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM FOR PISTON DISPLACEMENT | March 2004 | April 2006 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10793344 | FLUID FORMULATION EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENT UTILIZING BROAD SPECTRUM IMPEDANCE SPECTROSCOPY | March 2004 | January 2006 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10793067 | RESONANT NETWORK FLUID LEVEL SENSOR ASSEMBLY | March 2004 | December 2005 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10791347 | METHOD AND SYSTEM OF CHARACTERIZING A DEVICE UNDER TEST | March 2004 | April 2006 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10712742 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IMPLEMENTING AUTOMATED ELECTRONIC PACKAGE TRANSMISSION LINE CHARACTERISTIC IMPEDANCE VERIFICATION | November 2003 | June 2005 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10362694 | A DEVICE TO AUDIBLY EXPRESS IMPEDANCE MEASUREMENT | September 2003 | June 2005 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10416423 | MONITORING OF CORROSION INDUCED LOSS OF MATERIAL BY MEANS OF A PLURALITY OF ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE MEASUREMENTS (FIELD SIGNATURE METHOD, ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE TOMOGRAPHY) | September 2003 | June 2005 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10362758 | ELECTROSTATIC CAPACITANCE SENSOR AND FINGERPRINT COLLATOR COMPRISING IT | February 2003 | November 2004 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10306498 | A CONTACT SENSOR | November 2002 | January 2004 | Allow | 14 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10236889 | CIRCUIT CONFIGURATION AND METHOD FOR ASSESSING CAPACITANCES IN MATRICES | September 2002 | January 2004 | Allow | 16 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10219842 | APPARATUS FOR FORMING COAXIAL SILICON INTERCONNECTS | August 2002 | April 2003 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10069523 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR INSPECTION | June 2002 | July 2006 | Allow | 52 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10146953 | METHOD OF REGULATING RESISTANCE VALUE IN SENSOR CIRCUIT | May 2002 | March 2004 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10146195 | METHOD OF DETECTING STEADY-STATE CONVERGENCE OF A SIGNAL | May 2002 | September 2003 | Allow | 16 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10145451 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS FOR INPUTTING A SIGNAL, AND METHOD THEREFOR | May 2002 | April 2004 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10036373 | GROUND DETECTION APPARATUS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE | January 2002 | August 2004 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10035201 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DIRECTLY INJECTING A TEST SIGNAL INTO A CABLE | January 2002 | November 2003 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10022869 | MISFIRE DETECTION SYSTEM FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES | December 2001 | May 2004 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 09976860 | ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY PROBES | October 2001 | May 2003 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 09978290 | ELECTRONIC PART INSPECTION DEVICE | October 2001 | December 2003 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 09829749 | INTERCONNECT PACKAGE CLUSTER PROBE SHORT REMOVAL APPARATUS AND METHOD | April 2001 | February 2004 | Allow | 34 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 09808279 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MEASURING A MEASURING SIGNAL AND REFLECTED MEASURING SIGNAL | March 2001 | September 2003 | Allow | 30 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 09719753 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR THE ELECTRICAL TESTING OF PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARDS EMPLOYING INTERMEDIATE LAYER GROUNDING | February 2001 | May 2003 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner DOLE, TIMOTHY J.
With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.
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.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner DOLE, TIMOTHY J works in Art Unit 2848 and has examined 35 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 88.6%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 22 months.
Examiner DOLE, TIMOTHY J's allowance rate of 88.6% places them in the 70% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by DOLE, TIMOTHY J receive 1.43 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 20% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by DOLE, TIMOTHY J is 22 months. This places the examiner in the 88% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -3.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by DOLE, TIMOTHY J. This interview benefit is in the 8% 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, 20.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 24% 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 53.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 80% 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 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 19% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 150.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 97% 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 17.1% of allowed cases (in the 97% 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 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.