Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29988171 | Storage container | January 2025 | October 2025 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29967983 | STRING TRIMMER | October 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 12 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 29967979 | STRING TRIMMER | October 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 12 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 29948077 | DISPLAY SCREEN OR PORTION THEREOF WITH ANIMATED GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE | June 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29941606 | Putter Head | May 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 29908702 | Display device with graphical user interface | January 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 29904729 | PROJECTILE TOSS TARGET GAME APPARATUS | October 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 29901514 | GRASS TRIMMER | September 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 29901561 | INTERCHANGEABLE SKATE BLADE | September 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29876313 | COMBINATION ELECTRICAL JUNCTION BOX AND COVER | May 2023 | September 2025 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 29889633 | DRINKING WATER PURIFIER | April 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 35516657 | Inhaler | March 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 33 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 29882709 | TRIMMER | January 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 32 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 35517214 | Sheet Pile Building Material | May 2022 | November 2025 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 29796235 | Shopping Cart Tray | June 2021 | March 2026 | Abandon | 56 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 35513273 | Housing box for an automated spectacles cleaning mechanism or the like | June 2021 | August 2023 | Abandon | 26 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 29776891 | INTRAORAL SCAN BODY | April 2021 | March 2023 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MCLEAN, CHRISTIAN P.
With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.
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, 0.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is less effective here than in most other areas.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner MCLEAN, CHRISTIAN P works in Art Unit 2952 and has examined 3 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 33.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 26 months.
Examiner MCLEAN, CHRISTIAN P's allowance rate of 33.3% places them in the 5% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by MCLEAN, CHRISTIAN P receive 1.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 9% 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 MCLEAN, CHRISTIAN P is 26 months. This places the examiner in the 77% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.
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 2% 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 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 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 1% 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, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 74% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 32% 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.