Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18645925 | ADJUSTABLE HEADBOARD DEVICE | April 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18472142 | FORCE ABSORBING SHOULDER BELT ASSEMBLIES ESPECIALLY USEFUL FOR AIRCRAFT OCCUPANT SEATS | September 2023 | May 2025 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18082652 | Multi-Signal Radar Cross-Talk Mitigation | December 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17947387 | RADAR SELF-CALIBRATION DEVICE AND METHOD | September 2022 | July 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13180299 | AUTO TRANSMISSION LEVER MOUSE DEVICE FOR SHIFT BY WIRE SYSTEM | July 2011 | October 2014 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12991584 | MULTIGROUP TRANSMISSION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE | November 2010 | October 2013 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11732625 | AUTOMATED SLEEP SYSTEM | April 2007 | October 2009 | Allow | 30 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11693747 | ADAPTIVE POSITIONING SYSTEM | March 2007 | February 2010 | Allow | 35 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11528199 | DEVICE FOR RAISING AT LEAST A PORTION OF A MATTRESS | September 2006 | April 2007 | Allow | 7 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11523189 | INCLINED INFANT SLEEPER | September 2006 | April 2008 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | 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 KELLEHER, WILLIAM J works in Art Unit 3648 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 35 months.
Examiner KELLEHER, WILLIAM J'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 KELLEHER, WILLIAM J receive 1.67 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.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by KELLEHER, WILLIAM J is 35 months. This places the examiner in the 40% 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 KELLEHER, WILLIAM J. 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.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 50.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 76% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 6% 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 33.3% of allowed cases (in the 100% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 39% 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.