Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18662094 | Electric Commercial Vehicle Rear Axle | May 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18486856 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PERFORMING A CHECKING OF A PERSON BY MEANS OF INFRARED RADIATION AS WELL AS A MOTOR VEHICLE HAVING SAID DEVICE | October 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 25 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18481819 | SURGICAL INSTRUMENT WITH CARTRIDGE RELEASE MECHANISMS | October 2023 | June 2024 | Allow | 9 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18474478 | MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR PACKAGED MEDICINE ADMINISTERING DEVICE | September 2023 | September 2024 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18450669 | POWERTRAIN SYSTEM WITH POWER TAKE-OFF (PTO) AND REDUCTION PLANETARY GEAR SET | August 2023 | September 2025 | Allow | 25 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 18254676 | SURGICAL STAPLER | May 2023 | August 2024 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18318977 | MOTOR VEHICLE SEAT WITH INTEGRATED CONTROLS | May 2023 | September 2025 | Allow | 28 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 18027819 | END EFFECTOR FOR STAPLER | March 2023 | September 2024 | Allow | 18 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18172493 | WASHER FLUID RESERVOIR ASSEMBLY INCLUDING A HOLD FEATURE | February 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18002282 | PACKING MACHINE FOR HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL PACKING OF ARTICLES INTO A PACKING BOX | December 2022 | August 2024 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18082731 | ROTATABLE JAW TIP FOR A SURGICAL INSTRUMENT | December 2022 | April 2024 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17924344 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR THE STERILE FILLING OF CONTAINERS | November 2022 | September 2024 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17917544 | CARTONING MACHINE SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CARTONING A PRODUCT | October 2022 | July 2024 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17826271 | REPLACEABLE STAPLE CARTRIDGE WITH RETRACTABLE KNIFE | May 2022 | August 2024 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17737124 | MOTOR VEHICLE BODY WITH AN AIR-GUIDING DEVICE AND WITH A TRAILER COUPLING MOUNTING DEVICE | May 2022 | August 2025 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17768530 | Method for the open-loop and closed-loop control of a power tool | April 2022 | August 2024 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17710236 | BUTTRESS APPLICATOR SYSTEM FOR SURGICAL STAPLER | March 2022 | August 2024 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17704110 | Portal Axle Arrangement and Motor Vehicle | March 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17694732 | WHEEL-TO-TRACK CONVERSION SYSTEM | March 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17684664 | METHOD FOR OPERATING A VEHICLE OPERABLE BY MOTOR POWER AND/OR PEDAL POWER, AND VEHICLE | March 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17548860 | Electric Work Vehicle | December 2021 | June 2025 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17506340 | HYDRAULIC ANTI-ROLL BAR LINK | October 2021 | May 2024 | Allow | 31 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15109414 | MOBILE BASE MOUNTED ON AIR CUSHION FOR MEDICAL IMAGING MACHINE | June 2016 | February 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14787192 | HAND-HELD POWER TOOL AND CONTROL METHOD | October 2015 | April 2019 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14639837 | SHEET PROCESSING SYSTEM, METHOD FOR CONTROLLING SHEET PROCESSING SYSTEM, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | March 2015 | April 2019 | Allow | 49 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner NEACSU, VALENTIN.
With a 50.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.
✓ Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner NEACSU, VALENTIN works in Art Unit 3611 and has examined 5 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 80.0%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.
Examiner NEACSU, VALENTIN's allowance rate of 80.0% places them in the 50% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by NEACSU, VALENTIN receive 3.80 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 96% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues more office actions than most examiners, which may indicate thorough examination or difficulty in reaching agreement with applicants.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by NEACSU, VALENTIN is 42 months. This places the examiner in the 19% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -33.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by NEACSU, VALENTIN. 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, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 14% 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 25.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 34% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.
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.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 33% 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 50.0% of allowed cases (in the 97% 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.