Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19237049 | DETECTION METHOD FOR INVERTER SYSTEM, INVERTER SYSTEM, AND ARC DETECTION SYSTEM | June 2025 | July 2025 | Allow | 1 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18862236 | MULTI-FAULT DIAGNOSIS METHOD FOR POWER DISTRIBUTION NETWORK, AND SYSTEM | November 2024 | March 2026 | Abandon | 16 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18025506 | Current Separation Method, Prediction Method, System and Like of Nonaqueous Lithium Power Storage Element | June 2024 | September 2025 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18109553 | Determining Well Productivity for Hydraulically Fractured Wells | February 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17773524 | DETECTION OF ELECTRIC ARCS IN AN ELECTRICAL SYSTEM | August 2022 | November 2025 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17666114 | DETERMINING IMPEDANCE-RELATED PHENOMENA IN VIBRATING ACTUATOR AND IDENTIFYING DEVICE SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS BASED THEREON | February 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 47 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 17536503 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING TIRE INFLATION PRESSURE LOSS | November 2021 | August 2025 | Allow | 44 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17449746 | MACHINE LEARNING BASED EQUIPMENT FAILURE PREDICTION BASED ON DATA CAPTURE AT MULTIPLE SAMPLING RATES TO DETECT CHANGING BEHAVIOR (as amended | October 2021 | January 2026 | Abandon | 51 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ZAAB, SHARAH.
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 ZAAB, SHARAH works in Art Unit 2857 and has examined 2 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 50.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 51 months.
Examiner ZAAB, SHARAH's allowance rate of 50.0% places them in the 12% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by ZAAB, SHARAH 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 ZAAB, SHARAH is 51 months. This places the examiner in the 4% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -100.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ZAAB, SHARAH. This interview benefit is in the 0% 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, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 97% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.
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, 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.