Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29974868 | COMBINED ELECTRIC TOOTHBRUSH SET AND STAND | November 2024 | March 2025 | Allow | 3 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18584620 | SONOSENSITIZATION | February 2024 | August 2024 | Allow | 6 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 29903626 | Electric toothbrush | September 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 18 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 29901572 | TOOTHBRUSH HEAD | September 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 18 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18136036 | ROTATABLE THROMBUS ENGAGEMENT TOOL | April 2023 | November 2023 | Allow | 7 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 29873653 | Toothbrush | April 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 23 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17625813 | A DISSOLVABLE MICRONEEDLE | January 2022 | August 2024 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17436255 | MICRONEEDLE ARRAY COMPRISING A HEAT-PRODUCING ELEMENT | September 2021 | September 2024 | Allow | 36 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17312504 | Method and Device for Producing Microneedles | June 2021 | September 2024 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17238307 | DOSE DETECTION FOR A MEDICATION DELIVERY DEVICE | April 2021 | August 2024 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17234926 | FEEDING TUBE WITH INFLATABLE BALLOON COMPONENT AND AT LEAST ONE OF A CARBON DIOXIDE SAMPLING LINE AND A SUCTION TUBE COMPONENT | April 2021 | September 2024 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17231360 | MEDICAL INFUSION PUMP TREATMENT IDENTIFICATION | April 2021 | September 2024 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17188301 | Medical Agent Dispensing Systems, Methods, and Apparatuses | March 2021 | August 2024 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17187256 | PERITONEAL DIALYSATE FLOW PATH SENSING | February 2021 | September 2024 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17174367 | DELIVERY DEVICE WITH NOISE REDUCING COMPONENT | February 2021 | August 2024 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17063575 | MEDICAMENT TRAINING DEVICE AND SYSTEM | October 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 45 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17027667 | Dynamic Microvalve Protection Device | September 2020 | April 2024 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16086727 | FILTERING SYRINGE | September 2018 | March 2020 | Allow | 18 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16083427 | Determining Device for Determining a Value Representing a Dose of a Dose Metering Device, and a Method for Operating Same | September 2018 | April 2020 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15801809 | Offset Catheter Securement Device With Removable Retention Member | November 2017 | November 2019 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 15638300 | Breast Pump Comprising Heating Cup | June 2017 | January 2019 | Abandon | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15629337 | METHODS AND DEVICES FOR ANALYTE SENSING IN POTENTIAL SPACES | June 2017 | November 2019 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 15438270 | MICROFLOW RESTRICTOR ASSEMBLY AND METHODS OF MAKING THE SAME | February 2017 | May 2019 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 15376889 | MICRONEEDLE UNIT | December 2016 | August 2019 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15368124 | CANNULA STABILIZATION DEVICE | December 2016 | September 2018 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15033691 | SYRINGE FOR SEQUENTIAL INJECTION OF SUBSTANCES | August 2016 | February 2020 | Allow | 45 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15054983 | Selective Stiffening Catheter and Methods for Operating a Selective Stiffening Catheter | February 2016 | September 2018 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14783535 | DRIVE MECHANISM FOR A DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE | October 2015 | January 2018 | Allow | 28 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14783010 | DRIVE MECHANISM FOR A DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE | October 2015 | June 2018 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14781205 | DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE WITH INTEGRATED MAGNETIC MOVEMENT INDICATOR | September 2015 | May 2018 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14648376 | COMBINATION PLUNGER DEVICE FOR A DUAL CHAMBER MIXING SYRINGE | May 2015 | March 2018 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14105186 | TRANSPORT AND TRANSFER CONTAINER FOR A LIQUID MEDIUM | December 2013 | August 2019 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13684118 | APPARATUS, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR THE TREATMENT OF NEUROLOGICAL CONDITIONS | November 2012 | October 2018 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner STILES, AMBER R..
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.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner STILES, AMBER R. works in Art Unit 2913 and has examined 31 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 96.8%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 32 months.
Examiner STILES, AMBER R.'s allowance rate of 96.8% places them in the 90% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by STILES, AMBER R. receive 1.29 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 24% 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 STILES, AMBER R. is 32 months. This places the examiner in the 33% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +5.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by STILES, AMBER R.. This interview benefit is in the 30% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 36.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 79% 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 60.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 82% 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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 95% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 80.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 92% 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 6.7% of allowed cases (in the 83% 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.