Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29761673 | LIQUID DISPENSING POD | December 2020 | August 2022 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 29758003 | CUP | November 2020 | September 2022 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29755368 | CUP LID | October 2020 | August 2022 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29755367 | CUP LID | October 2020 | August 2022 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29754017 | MUG | October 2020 | July 2022 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29747103 | HINGED BOTTLE HANDLE | August 2020 | July 2022 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29746947 | CONTAINER | August 2020 | August 2022 | Allow | 24 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 29746352 | LID WITH PIVOTING MOUTHPIECE | August 2020 | August 2022 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29735950 | BOTTLE ATTACHMENT | May 2020 | March 2023 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29732702 | DRINKING BOTTLE | April 2020 | July 2022 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29725919 | BEVERAGE CONTAINER | February 2020 | August 2022 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29725914 | BEVERAGE CONTAINER | February 2020 | August 2022 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29725899 | BEVERAGE CONTAINER BASE | February 2020 | August 2022 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29724324 | SUCTION CHILD'S DISH | February 2020 | August 2022 | Allow | 30 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 29722119 | Cup with Exterior Thermal Ribbing | January 2020 | July 2022 | Allow | 30 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 29721153 | BEVERAGE CONTAINER WITH LID | January 2020 | November 2022 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29715654 | CUP | December 2019 | August 2022 | Allow | 32 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 29711347 | Tumbler | October 2019 | September 2022 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29707380 | CONTAINER | September 2019 | October 2022 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29706722 | BEVERAGE CONTAINER | September 2019 | August 2022 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29695647 | SNOW GLOBE CUP | June 2019 | August 2022 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | 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 LIANG, JAE works in Art Unit 2932 and has examined 21 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 90.5%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 30 months.
Examiner LIANG, JAE's allowance rate of 90.5% places them in the 74% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by LIANG, JAE receive 0.90 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 6% 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 LIANG, JAE is 30 months. This places the examiner in the 61% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -44.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LIANG, JAE. This interview benefit is in the 1% 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, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 1% 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 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 31% 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 73.7% of allowed cases (in the 99% 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.