USPTO Examiner ARELLANO PAUL WOODWARD - Art Unit 3658

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18673470ENGINE OIL SYSTEM FOR AN AIRCRAFT PROPULSION SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING SAMEMay 2024October 2025Allow1700YesNo
18274502METHOD FOR ASSISTING IN TRAVEL ARRANGEMENT AND COMPUTER STORAGE MEDIUMJuly 2023March 2026Allow3210YesNo
18310026APPARATUS FOR DETECTING TURBULENCEMay 2023December 2025Allow3120NoNo
18175737COMMUNICATING VEHICLE SIGNAL INFORMATION USING EXTENDED IDENTIFIERSFebruary 2023February 2026Allow3530YesNo
18113646VEHICLE CONTROL DEVICE, VEHICLE CONTROL METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUMFebruary 2023December 2025Allow3420YesNo
18107644APPARATUS FOR PREVENTING MISRECOGNITION OF OBJECT IN VEHICLE AND METHOD THEREFORFebruary 2023March 2026Allow3720YesNo
17805214DRIVING ASSISTANCE DEVICE AND DRIVING ASSISTANCE METHODJune 2022December 2025Allow4230YesYes
17719079Triplex Fully Redundant Fly-by-Wire ArchitectureApril 2022November 2025Allow4330YesNo
17529703ASSISTED TURBULENCE EFB INTERACTIONNovember 2021November 2025Allow4850YesNo
17365983Method for assisting a user of an assistance system, assistance system and vehicle comprising such a systemJuly 2021January 2026Allow5550NoNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner ARELLANO, PAUL WOODWARD - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner ARELLANO, PAUL WOODWARD works in Art Unit 3658 and has examined 2 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 55 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner ARELLANO, PAUL WOODWARD'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.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by ARELLANO, PAUL WOODWARD receive 5.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 99% 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by ARELLANO, PAUL WOODWARD is 55 months. This places the examiner in the 2% 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 +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ARELLANO, PAUL WOODWARD. 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 39% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 3% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments compared to other examiners. You should generally plan to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry. Per MPEP § 714.12, primary examiners have discretion in entering after-final amendments, and this examiner exercises that discretion conservatively.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 37% 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 40% 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:

  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • 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.