Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29946297 | Juicer Machine | June 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29941210 | Snack Cup | May 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 17 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 29939674 | TOFU PRESS | April 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 29937473 | Egg Separator Dish | April 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 29937187 | TIRE TREAD THEMED SURFACE FOR A BEVERAGE CONTAINER | April 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 21 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 29934285 | CUP | March 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 29930315 | BOTTLE | February 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 22 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 29896851 | MOSQUITO KILLER LAMP | July 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 29888895 | DOG TRAINING DEVICE SET | April 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16086727 | FILTERING SYRINGE | September 2018 | March 2020 | Allow | 18 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15801809 | Offset Catheter Securement Device With Removable Retention Member | November 2017 | November 2019 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 15368124 | CANNULA STABILIZATION DEVICE | December 2016 | September 2018 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | 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 |
| 14648376 | COMBINATION PLUNGER DEVICE FOR A DUAL CHAMBER MIXING SYRINGE | May 2015 | March 2018 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 1 | 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 STILES, AMBER R. works in Art Unit 2964 and has examined 6 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 100.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 28 months.
Examiner STILES, AMBER R.'s allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 99% 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 0.83 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 STILES, AMBER R. is 28 months. This places the examiner in the 70% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by STILES, AMBER R.. This interview benefit is in the 16% 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, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 98% 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.
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.