Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17137009 | CONTACTLESS SCREENING OF A QUBIT | December 2020 | March 2023 | Allow | 27 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16952579 | Compensating Control Signal for Raster Scan of a Scanning Probe Microscope | November 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17055756 | IMPACT IONISATION SPRAY OR ELECTROSPRAY IONISATION ION SOURCE | November 2020 | February 2023 | Allow | 27 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17095153 | Method of Mass Spectrometry | November 2020 | February 2023 | Allow | 27 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17091795 | METHODS AND DEVICES FOR HIGH-THROUGHPUT DATA INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS | November 2020 | February 2023 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16971436 | INTEGRATED ELECTROSPRAY ION SOURCE | August 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16663341 | ION BEAM GENERATING DEVICE INCLUDING LIQUID METAL ION SOURCE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME | October 2019 | July 2022 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16604933 | THE BREAKING OF DISULFIDE BONDS OF A NEBULIZED ANALYTE | October 2019 | March 2023 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16493964 | CHARGED-PARTICLE SUPPLY CONTROL METHOD AND DEVICE | September 2019 | March 2023 | Allow | 42 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16380890 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR FORMING A PATTERN ON A SURFACE USING MULTI-BEAM CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM LITHOGRAPHY | April 2019 | June 2022 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16223471 | SENSING DATA RELATED TO CHARGED PARTICLES TO PREDICT AN ANOMALY IN AN ENVIRONMENT | December 2018 | February 2023 | Allow | 50 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 16220928 | COLLISION CELL WITH ENHANCED ION BEAM FOCUSING AND TRANSMISSION | December 2018 | March 2023 | Allow | 51 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 15656937 | RANGE COMPENSATORS FOR RADIATION THERAPY | July 2017 | February 2022 | Allow | 55 | 5 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 15451856 | ANALYZER | March 2017 | August 2018 | Abandon | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14967648 | METHODS, SYSTEMS AND APPARATUS FOR ACCELERATING LARGE PARTICLE BEAM CURRENTS | December 2015 | August 2017 | Abandon | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14873983 | Toothbrush Sterilization Assembly | October 2015 | August 2017 | Abandon | 23 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14781092 | PARTICLE BEAM IRRADIATION ROOM AND PARTICLE BEAM THERAPY SYSTEM | September 2015 | February 2018 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14638786 | MULTI CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM WRITING APPARATUS | March 2015 | July 2015 | Allow | 4 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14490817 | LASER-OPERATED LIGHT SOURCE | September 2014 | April 2018 | Abandon | 43 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 14488710 | DRAWING APPARATUS, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING ARTICLE | September 2014 | December 2015 | Abandon | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14306485 | ION GROUP IRRADIATION DEVICE, SECONDARY ION MASS SPECTROMETER, AND SECONDARY ION MASS SPECTROMETRY METHOD | June 2014 | August 2015 | Abandon | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14191680 | X-RAY RECORDING SYSTEM FOR DIFFERENTIAL PHASE CONTRAST IMAGING OF AN EXAMINATION OBJECT BY WAY OF PHASE STEPPING | February 2014 | March 2017 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14241384 | X-RAY GENERATOR AND X-RAY IMAGING APPARATUS | February 2014 | September 2016 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14241401 | X-RAY GENERATION APPARATUS AND X-RAY RADIOGRAPHIC APPARATUS | February 2014 | January 2017 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13926730 | METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR ION SOURCES, ION CONTROL AND ION MEASUREMENT FOR MACROMOLECULES | June 2013 | November 2015 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13831187 | MAGNETIC ACTUATION AND THERMAL CANTILEVERS FOR TEMPERATURE AND FREQUENCY DEPENDENT ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY | March 2013 | August 2014 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13720326 | RADIATION TOMOGRAPHY APPARATUS | December 2012 | February 2016 | Abandon | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13521264 | ANALYZING METHOD OF PHASE INFORMATION, ANALYZING PROGRAM OF THE PHASE INFORMATION, STORAGE MEDIUM, AND X-RAY IMAGING APPARATUS | July 2012 | January 2017 | Abandon | 54 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13391093 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR THE QUANTITATIVE CHEMICAL SPECIATION OF HEAVY METALS AND OTHER TOXIC POLLUTANTS | April 2012 | May 2015 | Abandon | 38 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 13230539 | RAPID HIGH RESOLUTION DIFFERENTIAL ION MOBILITY SEPARATIONS USING HYDROGEN CARRIER GAS | September 2011 | November 2011 | Abandon | 2 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12962063 | Charged Particle Beam Irradiation System | December 2010 | June 2011 | Abandon | 7 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12910240 | SIMPLIFIED PARTICLE EMITTER AND METHOD OF OPERATING THEREOF | October 2010 | November 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12657384 | Irradiation system for door and faucet handles | January 2010 | November 2010 | Abandon | 9 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12385081 | Microchip and sample analysis method | March 2009 | May 2010 | Abandon | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12263438 | SHEET BEAM SLOW WAVE STRUCTURE | October 2008 | May 2010 | Abandon | 18 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12050616 | Rotary UV Curing Method and Apparatus | March 2008 | July 2010 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11629029 | Methods and Apparatus for Stabilizing a Subject Undergoing Phototherapy Treatment | December 2007 | May 2010 | Abandon | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11835659 | Scanning Electron Microscope | August 2007 | March 2009 | Abandon | 19 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 11829910 | Method for treating a tribologically stress-resistant surface of a workpiece | July 2007 | September 2010 | Abandon | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11811907 | Systems and methods for the production of fluorine-18 using high current proton accelerators | June 2007 | July 2010 | Abandon | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11756865 | Process and apparatus for isotope determination of condensed phase samples | June 2007 | August 2008 | Abandon | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 11798093 | Inspection apparatus and method | May 2007 | May 2010 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11800340 | Medical apparatus and procedure for positioning a patient in an isocenter | May 2007 | May 2010 | Abandon | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11784398 | Multiple medical accelerators and a kV-CT incorporated radiation therapy device and semi-automated custom reshapeable blocks for all field synchronous image guided 3-D-conformal-intensity modulated radiation therapy | April 2007 | November 2007 | Abandon | 7 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 11696293 | Structure for Ray Source Apparatus of Radiotherapy Device | April 2007 | May 2010 | Abandon | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11382651 | TOOL TIPS WITH SCANNING PROBE MICROSCOPY AND/OR ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY APPLICATIONS | May 2006 | September 2007 | Abandon | 16 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10983461 | Dose uniformity during scanned ion implantation | November 2004 | February 2011 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KIM, ROBERT H.
With a 50.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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, 25.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable reconsideration.
✓ Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner KIM, ROBERT H works in Art Unit 2881 and has examined 47 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 27.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 29 months.
Examiner KIM, ROBERT H's allowance rate of 27.7% places them in the 4% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by KIM, ROBERT H receive 1.62 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 28% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by KIM, ROBERT H is 29 months. This places the examiner in the 64% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +24.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KIM, ROBERT H. This interview benefit is in the 69% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 15.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 14% 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 50.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 76% 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.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 15% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 33.3% of appeals filed. This is in the 5% 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, 116.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 95% 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 28% 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 35% 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.