Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18960057 | PNEUMATIC TIRE | November 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 7 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18714198 | TIRE | May 2024 | May 2025 | Allow | 11 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18706844 | TIRE | May 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18701776 | BI-DIRECTIONAL SIPE AND/OR SLOT | April 2024 | May 2025 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18572062 | PNEUMATIC VEHICLE TIRE | December 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18377554 | WHEEL PARTITION ASSEMBLY CONFIGURED TO MODIFY TIRE CAVITY RESONANCE | October 2023 | January 2025 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18547030 | RUN FLAT TIRE | August 2023 | April 2025 | Abandon | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18269776 | TIRE | June 2023 | December 2024 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18338396 | PNEUMATIC TIRE | June 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18255548 | TIRE | June 2023 | April 2025 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18252369 | PNEUMATIC VEHICLE TYRE | May 2023 | October 2024 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18252365 | Pneumatic Tire for Aircraft | May 2023 | June 2025 | Abandon | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18130069 | TIRE | April 2023 | May 2025 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18109916 | TIRE | February 2023 | December 2024 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18078266 | PNEUMATIC TIRE | December 2022 | October 2024 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18074041 | TIRE AND METHOD FOR USING THE SAME | December 2022 | December 2024 | Abandon | 24 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17967410 | HEAVY DUTY TIRE | October 2022 | November 2024 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17906614 | TREAD PROFILE OF A VEHICLE TYRE | September 2022 | August 2024 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17757039 | TIRE | June 2022 | November 2024 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17756777 | TIRE | June 2022 | June 2024 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17781516 | TRUCK TIRE TREAD WITH J SHAPED SIPE | June 2022 | July 2024 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17780595 | TRUCK TIRE TREAD WITH DECOUPLING VOID AND ASSOCIATED DECOUPLING VOID SIPE | May 2022 | February 2024 | Allow | 21 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17780774 | TIRE | May 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17756564 | PNEUMATIC TIRE | May 2022 | July 2024 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17756286 | COMMERCIAL VEHICLE TIRE | May 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17777929 | A TREAD FOR IMPROVING SNOW PERFORMANCE | May 2022 | January 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17663745 | Higher traction, low-profile tires, for exotic/oversized wheels, DOT approved, and non-DOT approved for rear tires | May 2022 | April 2024 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17756055 | PNEUMATIC TIRE FOR A VEHICLE | May 2022 | September 2024 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17756017 | PNEUMATIC TIRE | May 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17775947 | TRUCK TIRE TREAD WITH DECOUPLING VOID AND ASSOCIATED DECOUPLING VOID SIPE | May 2022 | March 2024 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17771072 | TIRE HAVING AN IMPROVED TREAD | April 2022 | November 2024 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17771091 | TIRE HAVING AN IMPROVED TREAD | April 2022 | November 2024 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17713326 | PNEUMATIC TIRE | April 2022 | July 2024 | Abandon | 28 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17656334 | Higher traction tires (DOT approved & non DOT approved slicks/radials for wheel sizes 24", 26", 28", with tire width ranging from 255 to 325, while specifically being a tire with side wall profile of 25 to 35. Front tires for oversized wheels that are classified as drag slicks & DOT drag radials | March 2022 | April 2024 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17668022 | PNEUMATIC TIRE | February 2022 | June 2024 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17597669 | WIRELESS POWER RECEPTION SYSTEM, TIRE/WHEEL ASSEMBLY, AND TIRE | January 2022 | April 2025 | Allow | 39 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 17577323 | Pneumatic Tire | January 2022 | March 2024 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17548902 | PNEUMATIC TIRE | December 2021 | October 2024 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17542745 | PNEUMATIC TIRE | December 2021 | December 2024 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17520215 | TIRE | November 2021 | March 2024 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17448587 | TIRE | September 2021 | March 2024 | Allow | 30 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17386816 | PNEUMATIC TIRE | July 2021 | February 2024 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17294584 | PNEUMATIC TIRE | May 2021 | April 2024 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17223720 | TIRE | April 2021 | February 2024 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17279393 | STRUCTURE AND METHOD FOR MARKING TIRES | March 2021 | June 2024 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17276666 | PNEUMATIC TIRE | March 2021 | January 2024 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17276395 | PNEUMATIC TIRE | March 2021 | September 2024 | Allow | 42 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17153818 | CAR TYRE | January 2021 | February 2024 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17253210 | TIRE | December 2020 | July 2025 | Allow | 54 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17030041 | NON-PNEUMATIC TIRE INCLUDING FIBER PLATED USING METAL SALT | September 2020 | May 2024 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16982067 | PNEUMATIC VEHICLE TIRE | September 2020 | March 2024 | Allow | 42 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16965982 | Pneumatic Tire | July 2020 | March 2025 | Allow | 56 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16965084 | Pneumatic Tire | July 2020 | October 2024 | Allow | 50 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16161629 | PNEUMATIC TIRE | October 2018 | April 2023 | Allow | 54 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner DYE, ROBERT C.
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 DYE, ROBERT C works in Art Unit 3619 and has examined 50 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 29 months.
Examiner DYE, ROBERT C's allowance rate of 80.0% places them in the 42% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by DYE, ROBERT C receive 1.94 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 62% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by DYE, ROBERT C is 29 months. This places the examiner in the 48% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by DYE, ROBERT C. This interview benefit is in the 12% 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, 19.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 12% 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 71.4% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 91% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 14% 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, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 4% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.
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.
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.