Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18820420 | NAVIGATION PLANNING SYSTEM AND NAVIGATION PLANNING METHOD | August 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 18 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18645882 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MULTI-OBJECT TRACKING AND NAVIGATION WITHOUT PRE-SEQUENCING | April 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 21 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18439222 | Hierarchical Planning Through Goal-Conditioned Offline Reinforcement Learning | February 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18487633 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS | October 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18455705 | NAVIGATION INTERFACE DISPLAY METHOD AND APPARATUS, TERMINAL, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | August 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18308588 | AUTONOMOUS DRIVING DEVICE, METHOD AND SYSTEM | April 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18306719 | Method and Apparatus for Automatically Marking U-Turn Lane Line, Computer-Readable Storage Medium, and Map | April 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17877855 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING AXLE HOP IN A VEHICLE | July 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 42 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17877569 | ASYMMETRIC FAILSAFE SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE | July 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 43 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17362387 | SYSTEM FOR MANAGING USER BASED GEOFENCE | June 2021 | February 2026 | Abandon | 56 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17348561 | Generating a Geomagnetic Map | June 2021 | May 2023 | Abandon | 23 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner PEDERSEN, DAVID RUBEN.
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 PEDERSEN, DAVID RUBEN works in Art Unit 3658 and has examined 2 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 0.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 56 months.
Examiner PEDERSEN, DAVID RUBEN's allowance rate of 0.0% places them in the 0% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by PEDERSEN, DAVID RUBEN receive 3.50 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 94% 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.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by PEDERSEN, DAVID RUBEN is 56 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.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 14% 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 withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 2% 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, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 99% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.
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.
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.