Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29735827 | HANDLE | May 2020 | September 2020 | Allow | 4 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 35506380 | Channel layout teaching aid | October 2018 | May 2021 | Abandon | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 29646830 | Modular Self-Massage Apparatus | May 2018 | May 2020 | Allow | 25 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 29643273 | MASSAGE ROLLER | April 2018 | May 2020 | Allow | 26 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 29639537 | SMART CLOCK WITH PROJECTOR | March 2018 | December 2020 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29639535 | SMART CLOCK WITH PROJECTOR | March 2018 | December 2020 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29636365 | Wireless Charging Alarm Clock | February 2018 | May 2020 | Allow | 28 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 29631118 | Massage Head Boot | December 2017 | November 2020 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29628988 | Massage and Stimulation Device | December 2017 | August 2020 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29626282 | BACK ROLLER | November 2017 | July 2020 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 29626280 | BACK ROLLER | November 2017 | July 2020 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 29625071 | MASSAGING ROLLER | November 2017 | July 2020 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29625073 | MASSAGING ROLLER | November 2017 | July 2020 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29623706 | MASSAGE APPLIANCE | October 2017 | April 2021 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29621910 | SKIN CARE MASSAGER | October 2017 | June 2020 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29616809 | TISSUE MANIPULATION DEVICE | September 2017 | August 2020 | Allow | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29614919 | WATCH CASE | August 2017 | June 2020 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29614714 | WATCH CASE | August 2017 | June 2020 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29614667 | WATCH CASE | August 2017 | June 2020 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29611393 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE CLIP | July 2017 | August 2020 | Allow | 36 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 29600436 | HOSE | April 2017 | April 2020 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 29594704 | RADIO FREQUENCY BEAUTY INSTRUMENT | February 2017 | August 2020 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 29515499 | AIR FILTER | January 2015 | May 2020 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SNAPP, SANDRA S.
With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. 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, 100.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
✓ 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 is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner SNAPP, SANDRA S works in Art Unit 2912 and has examined 23 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 95.7%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 33 months.
Examiner SNAPP, SANDRA S's allowance rate of 95.7% places them in the 85% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by SNAPP, SANDRA S receive 1.17 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 12% 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 SNAPP, SANDRA S is 33 months. This places the examiner in the 48% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +4.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SNAPP, SANDRA S. This interview benefit is in the 29% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 100.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 99% 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 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.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 29% 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 27.3% of allowed cases (in the 96% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.
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.