Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19021586 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR TREATING A HETEROGENEOUS MIXTURE OF MATERIALS | January 2025 | February 2026 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 19021506 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR TREATING A HETEROGENEOUS MIXTURE OF MATERIALS | January 2025 | February 2026 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18986312 | SEISMIC MULTI-HORIZON TRACKING FRAMEWORK | December 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18677722 | WIND TURBINE FARM | May 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 12 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18484078 | EVALUATION APPARATUS, EVALUATION METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | October 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 28 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18277003 | DATA ANALYSIS METHOD SELECTION DEVICE METHOD AND PROGRAM | August 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 29 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18022805 | Scaffold Contrained Molecular Generation Using Memory Networks | February 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18018617 | STEP COUNTING METHOD, STEP COUNTING DEVICE, AND COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | January 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17967611 | TIRE PHYSICAL INFORMATION ESTIMATION SYSTEM AND ARITHMETIC OPERATION MODEL GENERATION SYSTEM | October 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17849301 | DATA-DRIVEN FEATURE ENGINEERING AND MACHINE LEARNING FOR ANALYSIS OF DISTRIBUTED SENSING DATA | June 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17705997 | SEISMIC DATA PROCESSING USING A DOWN-GOING ANNIHILATION OPERATOR | March 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17629581 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ENVIRONMENT-DEPENDENT PROBABILISTIC TROPICAL CYCLONE MODELING | January 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 49 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17481417 | Automated Artificial Intelligence Model Generation, Training, and Testing | September 2021 | January 2026 | Allow | 52 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17288335 | IMPROVED OPERATING METHOD FOR TRANSMISSIONS | April 2021 | January 2026 | Allow | 57 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16867217 | MOTOR DRIVE AND METHOD FOR MONITORING OPERATIONAL MEASUREMENT DATA OF A ELECTRIC MOTOR HAVING AT LEAST ONE OPERATING POINT | May 2020 | January 2026 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16042337 | FAILURE ANALYZING APPARATUS AND FAILURE ANALYZING METHOD | July 2018 | July 2021 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15580897 | METHOD FOR PROCESSING MEASUREMENTS OF AT LEAST ONE ELECTRONIC SENSOR PLACED IN A HANDHELD DEVICE | December 2017 | September 2021 | Allow | 45 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13145277 | METHOD OF AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING CSEM DATA, PROGRAM, STORAGE MEDIUM, COMPUTER AND USE OF METHOD | September 2011 | February 2020 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13124092 | DEVICE FOR DETECTING DEFECT OF TURBINE ROTOR BLADE AND METHOD FOR DETECTING DEFECT OF TURBINE ROTOR BLADE | May 2011 | April 2015 | Allow | 48 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13030342 | Shock Sensing System and Method | February 2011 | October 2013 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13003326 | BATTERY-STATE MONITORING APPARATUS | January 2011 | January 2015 | Allow | 48 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ISHIZUKA, YOSHIHISA.
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, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner ISHIZUKA, YOSHIHISA works in Art Unit 2857 and has examined 9 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 88.9%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 48 months.
Examiner ISHIZUKA, YOSHIHISA's allowance rate of 88.9% 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 ISHIZUKA, YOSHIHISA 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 ISHIZUKA, YOSHIHISA is 48 months. This places the examiner in the 8% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +33.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ISHIZUKA, YOSHIHISA. This interview benefit is in the 81% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 28.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 52% 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 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 request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 96% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 75.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 65% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 66.7% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows above-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. The mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) provides an opportunity for reconsideration.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 99% 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 32% 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.