Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29739747 | DIAL | June 2020 | September 2021 | Allow | 15 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 29653699 | DENTAL SYRINGE CAP | June 2018 | April 2019 | Allow | 10 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 29581714 | CONTAINER LINER | October 2016 | November 2019 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12807861 | METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING AND EVALUATING PARALLEL MOTOR CONTROL FUNCTION IN THE BRAIN BASED ON ELECTROMYOGRAM SIGNALS | September 2010 | February 2013 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12304062 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DETECTING AND PREVENTING PLANTAR ULCERS | April 2010 | March 2013 | Allow | 51 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12389778 | DIAGNOSTIC TEST ELEMENT AND PROCESS FOR ITS PRODUCTION | February 2009 | July 2011 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12388878 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR REAL TIME CHARACTERIZATION OF SOFT MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL TISSUES BASED ON NONLINEAR PROPERTIES | February 2009 | September 2014 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 12306762 | FLEXIBILITY ASSESSMENT APPARATUS | December 2008 | March 2012 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12337785 | BIOPSY DEVICE WITH RETRACTABLE CUTTER | December 2008 | January 2012 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12088996 | METHOD AND IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE FOR MEASURING AN ELECTRICAL BIO-IMPEDANCE OF A PATIENT | April 2008 | November 2010 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 29285389 | LIGHT BARRIER FOR GATES | March 2007 | October 2007 | Allow | 7 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 11727654 | SWALLOWING FUNCTION EVALUATING APPARATUS | March 2007 | September 2009 | Allow | 29 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11673082 | TEST ELEMENT WITH ELASTICALLY MOUNTED LANCET | February 2007 | July 2011 | Allow | 53 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11582921 | ROTARY DEVICE TO GATHER MUCOUS FOR TESTING | October 2006 | November 2008 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 29181182 | PUMP DEVICE | May 2003 | November 2003 | Allow | 6 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner STOUT, MICHAEL C works in Art Unit 2924 and has examined 15 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 93.3%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 32 months.
Examiner STOUT, MICHAEL C's allowance rate of 93.3% places them in the 80% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by STOUT, MICHAEL C receive 1.40 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 19% 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 STOUT, MICHAEL C is 32 months. This places the examiner in the 52% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +10.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by STOUT, MICHAEL C. This interview benefit is in the 43% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 35.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 81% 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 3% 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, 100.0% 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 20.0% of allowed cases (in the 98% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 28.6% 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.