Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18639304 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A CLEANING PROCESS OF TARGETED SURFACES | April 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18464114 | DUAL SIDE SPRING V-CLIP FOR SURGICAL TREATMENT OF LEFT ATRIAL APPENDAGE | September 2023 | May 2025 | Allow | 21 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18346044 | ASPIRATION THROMBECTOMY SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR THROMBUS REMOVAL WITH ASPIRATION CATHETER | June 2023 | September 2024 | Allow | 15 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18342519 | OCCLUSION CLIP | June 2023 | July 2024 | Allow | 12 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17996145 | OPTICAL MARKER FOR POSITIONING MEDICAL INSTRUMENT, AND MEDICAL INSTRUMENT ASSEMBLY | October 2022 | June 2024 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17411174 | PULL-THROUGH CHORDAE TENDINEAE SYSTEM | August 2021 | September 2024 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17326219 | Implant Detachment | May 2021 | August 2024 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17246623 | LUNG ACCESS DEVICE | May 2021 | August 2024 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16142197 | REPOSABLE MULTI-FIRE SURGICAL CLIP APPLIER | September 2018 | May 2020 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16012818 | SPECIMEN RETRIEVAL DEVICE | June 2018 | February 2020 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15954389 | STRETCHABLE STENT AND DELIVERY SYSTEM | April 2018 | February 2020 | Allow | 22 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15498961 | Oral Devices | April 2017 | November 2019 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 15452323 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR FORMING AN OPENING IN PATIENT'S TISSUE | March 2017 | December 2018 | Allow | 22 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15380662 | Articulating Retractors | December 2016 | March 2020 | Allow | 39 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15273299 | Ear Cleaning Device | September 2016 | June 2018 | Allow | 21 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13764681 | Device And Kit For Treatment Of Disorders In The Heart Rhythm Regulation System | February 2013 | November 2013 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13675366 | ANOSCOPE FOR ANO-RECTAL DIAGNOSTIC AND SURGERY | November 2012 | January 2014 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13669484 | EXTRALUMINAL BALLOON DISSECTION | November 2012 | May 2013 | Allow | 6 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13661231 | NASAL SPLINT | October 2012 | June 2014 | Allow | 19 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13627618 | ANASTOMOSIS DEVICE AND METHOD | September 2012 | August 2013 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13494494 | NATURAL ORIFICE TRANSLUMENAL ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY (NOTES) DEVICE | June 2012 | July 2013 | Allow | 13 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13484650 | Device and Method for Nasal Surgery | May 2012 | February 2014 | Allow | 21 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13276575 | VESSEL OCCLUDING MATERIAL EXTRACTOR | October 2011 | January 2014 | Allow | 27 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13240254 | LANCING DEVICE FOR ONE SKIN PUNCTURE | September 2011 | August 2012 | Allow | 11 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13223856 | EXTRALUMINAL BALLOON DISSECTION | September 2011 | July 2012 | Allow | 11 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13105820 | APPARATUS FOR SAFE PERFORMANCE OF TRANSSEPTAL TECHNIQUE AND PLACEMENT AND POSITIONING OF AN ABLATION CATHETER | May 2011 | March 2013 | Allow | 23 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12804275 | SUTURE ORGANIZER | July 2010 | January 2013 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12817100 | Mitral Valve Treatment | June 2010 | March 2013 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12801412 | Integrated double clips applier with division device for clamping clips | June 2010 | November 2012 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12558094 | EXTRALUMINAL BALLOON DISSECTION | September 2009 | August 2011 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12322137 | EXPLANTING IMPLANTABLE DEVICES | January 2009 | February 2014 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 12341088 | FLEXIBLE DEVICE FOR INTRODUCING A MEDICAL APPARATUS INTO A BODY | December 2008 | May 2012 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12137009 | INTRAOCULAR LENS INJECTOR AND METHOD | June 2008 | July 2011 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11986148 | EPILATION DEVICE | November 2007 | January 2011 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11982735 | Clot capture coil | October 2007 | July 2013 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11980879 | EXTRALUMINAL BALLOON DISSECTION | October 2007 | June 2011 | Allow | 43 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 11705360 | Aortic punch | February 2007 | March 2013 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11652011 | METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR GUIDING A NEEDLE | January 2007 | August 2011 | Allow | 55 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 11536053 | CO-AXIAL ACTUATED SCISSORS | September 2006 | January 2011 | Allow | 51 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11335205 | GUIDEWIRE LOADED STENT FOR DELIVERY THROUGH A CATHETER | January 2006 | September 2013 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MILES, JONATHAN WADE.
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, 50.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner MILES, JONATHAN WADE works in Art Unit 3656 and has examined 35 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 97.1%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 30 months.
Examiner MILES, JONATHAN WADE's allowance rate of 97.1% places them in the 88% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by MILES, JONATHAN WADE receive 1.60 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 31% 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 MILES, JONATHAN WADE is 30 months. This places the examiner in the 61% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -3.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MILES, JONATHAN WADE. This interview benefit is in the 6% 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, 35.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 79% 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 30.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 45% 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 18% 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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 97% percentile among all examiners. 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 74% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 5.7% of allowed cases (in the 87% 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.