USPTO Examiner JONES JAMES WILLIAM - Art Unit 3615

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18731207CONTROL SYSTEM FOR RAILWAY YARD AND RELATED METHODSMay 2024November 2024Allow510NoNo
18611165BROKEN RAIL DETECTORMarch 2024March 2025Allow1210NoNo
18474681GAP BLOCKING SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AMUSEMENT PARK ATTRACTIONSSeptember 2023August 2024Allow1101NoNo
17851831AERIAL CABLE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OPERATING SUCH A SYSTEMJune 2022June 2025Allow3600NoNo
17780818VEHICLE POWER SUPPLY DEVICEMay 2022June 2025Allow3710NoNo
17764941CORNERPIECE OF A CONVOLUTE OF A BELLOWS OF A GANGWAY AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SUCH A CORNERPIECEMarch 2022June 2025Allow3920YesNo
17638577CURRENT COLLECTOR FOR A RAIL VEHICLEFebruary 2022December 2024Allow3410NoNo
17626585Permanent-Magnet Magnetic Levitation Rail Transit Control System Based On 5G Communication TechnologyJanuary 2022March 2025Allow3810NoNo
17616290Method, Apparatus and System for Lifting Railroad StructuresDecember 2021October 2024Allow3500NoNo
17616077VEHICLE INSTRUMENT DESK DEVICE AND VEHICLEDecember 2021April 2025Allow4010NoNo
17532001TRANSPORT APPARATUSNovember 2021April 2025Allow4010NoNo
17292113CABLE GUIDING DEVICE FOR URBAN OR PERI-URBAN AERIAL CABLEWAY SYSTEMNovember 2021June 2025Abandon5010NoNo
17606117ASSEMBLY FOR CONNECTING TWO DRIVE SIDES OF A DRIVE TRAIN OF A RAIL VEHICLEOctober 2021September 2024Allow3500NoNo
17498217HOPPER RAILROAD CAR HAVING TOP HATCH COVER ASSEMBLYOctober 2021March 2025Allow4110NoNo
17598905Underframe Boundary Beam Connecting Structure Suitable for Railway Vehicle with Drum-Shaped Vehicle BodySeptember 2021November 2024Allow3700NoNo
17481121TRANSPORT SYSTEM, PROCESSING SYSTEM, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING ARTICLESeptember 2021March 2025Allow4110NoNo
17479366MULTI-SEGMENT MOVABLE RAILING ASSEMBLYSeptember 2021March 2025Allow4210NoNo
17440412ARTICLE CONVEYANCE APPARATUSSeptember 2021February 2025Allow4110NoNo
17436620Single-door Control Circuit for TrainSeptember 2021October 2024Allow3700NoNo
17445748AUTOMATED COUNTERBALANCE SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING COUNTERBALANCE AND ADJUSTING COUNTERWEIGHTS OF A CROSSING GATEAugust 2021June 2025Allow4620NoNo
17406995Direct Drive Automated Hatch System for Hopper RailcarsAugust 2021January 2025Abandon4110NoNo
17430701RUNNING APPARATUS AND TESTING APPARATUSAugust 2021March 2025Abandon4410NoNo
17429809Amusement ride and method for operating an amusement rideAugust 2021January 2025Abandon4110NoNo
17425333ASSEMBLED BAMBOO SLEEPER AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOFJuly 2021November 2024Allow4010NoNo
17424501ONE-STEP INTEGRALLY-FORMED BAMBOO SLEEPER AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOFJuly 2021September 2024Allow3810NoNo
17379452SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING VEHICLE DISTRIBUTED POWER ARRANGEMENTJuly 2021June 2025Allow4730NoNo
17372938NON-CONTACT ELECTRIC WIRE REEL AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING APPARATUS HAVING THE SAMEJuly 2021February 2025Abandon4310NoNo
17356780Intelligent Drop TableJune 2021April 2025Allow4620NoNo
17415470Stabilisation and levitation mechanism for a dedicated vehicle, taking into account the interoperability with existing transport systems in the vicinity of switches and routes of conventional vehicles and how the vehicle is stabilised in the stabilisation and levitation mechanismJune 2021December 2024Abandon4210NoNo
17299092METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR WARNING A MOTOR VEHICLE OF A COLLISION WITH A RAILWAY VEHICLEJune 2021March 2025Abandon4520NoNo
17297444TRANSFER DEVICE FOR MAINTAINING AN ELECTRICAL OR OPTICAL CONNECTIONMay 2021March 2025Allow4620NoNo
17329950REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF CONTAINER SHUTTLES FROM RAIL TRACKSMay 2021January 2025Allow4420NoNo
17320542RAILWAY VEHICLE COMPARTMENT, ASSOCIATED ASSEMBLY, RAILWAY VEHICLE AND METHODMay 2021July 2024Allow3810NoNo
17288533RAIL VEHICLE BODY STRUCTUREApril 2021March 2025Abandon4620NoNo
17229626PORTABLE LINE ASCENDING DEVICE FOR SLIDING OR ROLLER SPORTSApril 2021April 2025Allow4820NoYes
17227028TRANSFER CAR FOR SLEEPERS AND THE ASSOCIATED RAILWAY VEHICLEApril 2021November 2024Allow4330YesNo
17227041MECHANISM FOR RECIPROCAL MOVEMENT OF STACKS OF SLEEPERS, AND RAILWAY VEHICLE COMPRISING SUCH A MECHANISMApril 2021August 2024Allow4010NoNo
17221039VEHICLE CONTROL SYSTEMApril 2021December 2024Allow4530YesNo
17278677MONITORING DEVICE FOR MONITORING A TEMPORARY RAIL CONNECTION OF TWO RAIL PORTIONS OF A RAIL AND RAIL CONNECTION SYSTEM HAVING SUCH A MONITORING DEVICEMarch 2021July 2024Allow4010NoNo
17275997VEHICLE POSITION IDENTIFICATIONMarch 2021October 2024Abandon4310NoNo
17275954Guide Plate and Rail Attachment PointMarch 2021September 2024Allow4210NoNo
17194813AUTOMATIC END OF TRAIN DEVICE BASED PROTECTION FOR A RAILWAY VEHICLEMarch 2021February 2025Abandon4740NoNo
17159911UNIVERSAL HITCH INTERMODAL WELL CAR SYSTEMJanuary 2021August 2024Allow4320NoNo
17073172PORTABLE POSITIONING AND ODOMETRY SYSTEMOctober 2020January 2025Allow5141YesNo
17007392VEHICLE TRACTION MATAugust 2020January 2025Allow5350NoNo
16966755Multifunctional Track System With Independently Movable VehiclesJuly 2020July 2024Allow4820YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner JONES, JAMES WILLIAM.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
1
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
6.4%
Lower than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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.

Strategic Recommendations

Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner JONES, JAMES WILLIAM - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner JONES, JAMES WILLIAM works in Art Unit 3615 and has examined 44 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 77.3%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner JONES, JAMES WILLIAM's allowance rate of 77.3% places them in the 36% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by JONES, JAMES WILLIAM receive 1.45 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 34% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by JONES, JAMES WILLIAM is 42 months. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +25.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by JONES, JAMES WILLIAM. This interview benefit is in the 76% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 38.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 86% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 62.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 85% 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 96% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 31% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may come directly without a separate action for formal matters.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.
  • Consider after-final amendments: This examiner frequently enters after-final amendments. If you can clearly overcome rejections with claim amendments, file an after-final amendment before resorting to an RCE.
  • RCEs are effective: This examiner has a high allowance rate after RCE compared to others. If you receive a final rejection and have substantive amendments or arguments, an RCE is likely to be successful.
  • Appeal filing as negotiation tool: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.