USPTO Examiner KELLEHER WILLIAM J - Art Unit 3658

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
14152887FloaterAugust 2023October 2016Abandon3310YesNo
16465275DAYLIGHTING SYSTEMMay 2019November 2020Abandon1800NoNo
16296327TRANSMISSIONMarch 2019October 2019Abandon800NoNo
16217815POWER TRANSMISSION SYSTEMDecember 2018November 2019Abandon1100NoNo
15996534FLEX SPLINE FOR STRAIN WAVE GEAR DEVICE, AND STRAIN WAVE GEAR DEVICE USING SAMEJune 2018August 2019Abandon1400NoNo
15950493PAPER SHEET HANDLING APPARATUS AND PAPER SHEET DETERMINING METHODApril 2018April 2019Abandon1200NoNo
15895484STEERING SYSTEM AND STEERING SENSOR SYSTEMFebruary 2018December 2018Abandon1000NoNo
15832895SHEET CONVEYANCE APPARATUS AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUSDecember 2017March 2020Abandon2711NoNo
14927742OPERATION ASSISTANCE SYSTEMOctober 2015January 2019Abandon3920YesYes
14788800ROBOT JOINT MECHANISM AND ROBOTJuly 2015October 2017Abandon2810NoNo
14754704ROBOTJune 2015August 2017Abandon2610NoNo
14633119Personalized gear shift leverFebruary 2015October 2016Abandon2010NoNo
14511477TRANSMISSION ELECTRONIC SHIFTER WITH DUAL MECHANICAL DETENTSOctober 2014October 2016Abandon2410NoNo
14385613GEAR TRANSMISSION STAGESeptember 2014July 2018Abandon4660NoNo
14338839RACK GUIDE MECHANISMJuly 2014October 2016Abandon2710NoNo
14306978REDUCER FOR VEHICLEJune 2014October 2016Abandon2810NoNo
14298914COLLAPSIBLE, FOLDING MATTRESS SUPPORTJune 2014September 2014Allow410NoNo
14285527HUMANOID ROBOTICS SYSTEM AND METHODSMay 2014November 2015Abandon1810NoNo
14229836Method and Apparatus for a Convertible Patient BedMarch 2014September 2014Allow510NoNo
14348055ACTUATING APPARATUSMarch 2014June 2017Abandon3920NoNo
14117409METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MOVING AND POSITIONING A GRIPPING UNIT, AND A ROBOT PROVIDED WITH GRIPPING UNITMarch 2014October 2016Abandon3501NoNo
14215067ROBOTMarch 2014June 2016Abandon2711YesNo
14343872GEAR WITH RIGIDLY CONNECTED DRIVESHAFTMarch 2014May 2017Abandon3830NoNo
14189017VIBRATION EXCITERFebruary 2014March 2017Abandon3721NoNo
14178177JOINT MECHANISM AND ROBOTFebruary 2014December 2016Abandon3410NoNo
14144133HYBRID POWERTRAIN PROVIDED WITH DOUBLE CLUTCH TRANSMISSIONDecember 2013May 2015Abandon1710NoNo
14136039ANTI-ROTATION DEVICE FOR ACTUATORSDecember 2013October 2016Abandon3410NoNo
14071539Drive SystemNovember 2013October 2016Abandon3501NoNo
13979847OIL-PUMPING MACHINENovember 2013October 2016Abandon3901NoNo
14065077ROTATING STRUCTURE OF WEIGHT FOR MANUAL TRANSMISSIONOctober 2013December 2016Abandon3720NoNo
14060624ROTATION SPEED MEASURING DEVICEOctober 2013February 2016Abandon2720NoNo
14047321BALL SCRW CAPABLE OF SENSING PARALLELISM IN REAL TIMEOctober 2013March 2017Abandon4120NoNo
14013267LOCKING DIFFERENTIAL HAVING COMBINATION PRELOAD SPRINGS FOR MAINTAINED CONTACTAugust 2013November 2015Allow2720YesNo
13945000LEVER STYLE ELECTRONIC SHIFTER WITH CONCEALED LEVER POSITIONJuly 2013November 2015Abandon2820YesNo
13933840METHODS OF TRANSLATING HOSPITAL CHAIR BEDS WITH ARTICULATING FOOT SECTIONSJuly 2013August 2014Allow1420NoNo
13906586ENGAGE LEVER FOR GEARBOX DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH BEARING BLOCKMay 2013December 2016Abandon4220NoNo
13990527RACK-AND-PINION STEERING SYSTEM HAVING A SIMPLE SEALINGMay 2013December 2016Abandon4220NoNo
13825195SLIDING DOOR DRIVEMay 2013October 2016Abandon4330NoNo
13872133TABLE AND SLIDE ASSEMBLIES FOR PATIENT TRANSFER DEVICEApril 2013June 2014Allow1410NoNo
13872144HARMONIC DRIVEApril 2013May 2015Abandon2410NoNo
13881140ENGAGEMENT CHAIN TYPE DEVICE FOR FORWARD AND BACKWARD MOVEMENT OPERATIONApril 2013November 2016Abandon4320YesNo
13795266PARALLELOGRAM BASED ACTUATING DEVICEMarch 2013October 2014Allow2001NoNo
13782856WORM WHEEL FOR ELECTRIC POWER STEERING APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAMEMarch 2013October 2016Abandon4321NoNo
13770266PATIENT SUPPORT HAVING AUTO CONTOURFebruary 2013August 2014Allow1820NoNo
13750545FLYWHEEL ASSEMBLY FOR GYROSCOPIC APPLICATIONS HAVING BALL BEARING SLUG SEPARATORSJanuary 2013November 2015Abandon3410NoNo
13595868LOCKING DIFFERENTIAL HAVING IMPROVED CLUTCH TEETHAugust 2012June 2015Abandon3410NoNo
13581210Ball Screw and Manufacturing Method of Nut for Ball ScrewAugust 2012July 2015Abandon3511NoNo
13580510DRIVE FOR A ROTARY DRUMAugust 2012November 2016Abandon5140YesNo
13572942ZERO BACKLASH GEAR STRUCTUREAugust 2012March 2017Abandon5550NoNo
13574776TORQUE MULTIPLIERJuly 2012December 2015Abandon4120YesNo
13553019HORIZONTAL ARTICULATED ROBOTJuly 2012December 2014Abandon2941NoNo
13551931COMPACT MODULAR ACTUATORJuly 2012February 2015Abandon3110NoNo
13380551VEHICLE GEARBOX FAMILYJanuary 2012October 2016Abandon5850YesNo
13352053ELECTRIC ACTUATORS IN AIRCRAFT SYSTEMSJanuary 2012July 2015Abandon4230YesNo
13237788ACTUATOR SYSTEM AND METHODSeptember 2011February 2016Abandon5251YesNo
13201203SPINDLE DRIVE FOR LONGITUDINALLY ADJUSTING A MOTOR VEHICLE SEATAugust 2011March 2015Allow4311YesNo
13196097ELECTRIC STARTER MOTORAugust 2011December 2014Abandon4160NoNo
13194796SHOCK RESISTANT FLUID DYNAMIC BEARING MOTORJuly 2011April 2017Abandon6041NoYes
13157619ROLLER BEARING HAVING AN ELECTRIC SOLENOID POWERED BRAKEJune 2011August 2014Allow3821YesNo
13127659TRANSMISSION FOR HYBRID VEHICLEMay 2011March 2015Abandon4621NoNo
13090673UTILITY VEHICLE TRANSMISSION CONTROLS WITH COMMON PIVOT SHAFTApril 2011October 2014Allow4230NoNo
13059436GEARBOX DRIVE UNITApril 2011July 2015Abandon5341YesNo
13058148Ball ScrewFebruary 2011December 2014Abandon4731NoNo
13022093OPTICAL AXIS ADJUSTING SCREWFebruary 2011September 2014Allow4331YesNo
13056010Ball ScrewJanuary 2011December 2014Abandon4740NoNo
13055862DRIVE SYSTEM FOR A FORMING PRESSJanuary 2011August 2014Allow4211YesNo
13054711GEARINGJanuary 2011February 2016Allow6020NoYes
12985433ROBOTJanuary 2011November 2015Abandon5941YesNo
12966964METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING AN ADJUSTMENT FITTINGDecember 2010February 2017Allow6040NoYes
12937300DUAL CLUTCH TRANSMISSION HAVING SIMPLIFIED CONTROLSOctober 2010October 2014Allow4830YesNo
12878809ROBOT JOINT DRIVING METHOD, COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM, DEVICE ASSEMBLY AND ROBOT HAVING THE SAMESeptember 2010May 2013Abandon3230YesNo
12775347CONTROL SCHEMES AND FEATURES FOR CLIMATE-CONTROLLED BEDSMay 2010July 2014Allow5030YesNo
12706940Deflecting body for a ball screwFebruary 2010April 2016Abandon6040NoYes
12526502CVT CONTROL SYSTEMJanuary 2010June 2015Abandon6040NoYes
12599049DIFFERENTIAL OF LIGHTWEIGHT CONSTRUCTION FOR MOTOR VEHICLESDecember 2009February 2017Allow6040YesYes
12428667SOFA BED WITH ROLL OUT BED MECHANISMApril 2009September 2014Allow6030NoYes
12007568INFANT PILLOW DEVICEJanuary 2008December 2009Allow2310YesNo
11571749SPEED REDUCER TO BE ATTACHED TO ARTICULATED PORTION OF INDUSTRIAL ROBOTJanuary 2007November 2016Abandon6020NoYes

Appeals Overview

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

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
7
Examiner Affirmed
3
(42.9%)
Examiner Reversed
4
(57.1%)
Reversal Percentile
82.3%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 57.1% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
9
Allowed After Appeal Filing
4
(44.4%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
5
(55.6%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
73.3%
Higher 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, 44.4% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.

Strategic Recommendations

Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.

Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Examiner KELLEHER, WILLIAM J - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner KELLEHER, WILLIAM J works in Art Unit 3658 and has examined 78 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 24.4%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 37 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner KELLEHER, WILLIAM J's allowance rate of 24.4% places them in the 3% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by KELLEHER, WILLIAM J receive 2.04 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 49% 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 KELLEHER, WILLIAM J is 37 months. This places the examiner in the 33% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +23.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KELLEHER, WILLIAM J. This interview benefit is in the 67% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 7.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 4% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 22.2% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 30% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 36.4% of appeals filed. This is in the 6% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 46% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 2.6% of allowed cases (in the 78% 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 41% 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:

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.
  • Examiner cooperation: This examiner frequently makes examiner's amendments to place applications in condition for allowance. If you are close to allowance, the examiner may help finalize the claims.

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.