Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18804271 | AUTONOMOUS DRIVING ROBOT CAPABLE OF OBSTACLE AVOIDANCE MOVEMENT | August 2024 | October 2024 | Allow | 2 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18152359 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATED TRANSMISSION OF SATELLITE COMMANDS IN AN OPTIMIZED SATELLITE COMMANDING QUEUE | January 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 26 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18058839 | LOADER DEVICE AND SUBSTRATE TRANSPORT SYSTEM | November 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 30 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17994225 | ROBOT AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE SAME | November 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17909386 | DRONE TAKEOVER AND REDIRECTING SYSTEM AND METHOD EMPLOYING LANDING OF DRONES | September 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17818165 | IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS BY COLOR WITH ARHUD | August 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17742139 | PARKING ASSIST DEVICE, PARKING ASSIST METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | May 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17741781 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AIR SPACE HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND ALERTING | May 2022 | July 2025 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17729447 | PLATFORM FOR PATH PLANNING SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FOR AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEM | April 2022 | October 2024 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17729470 | PLATFORM FOR PATH PLANNING SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FOR AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEM | April 2022 | October 2024 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17709839 | WIRELESS CONTROL SYSTEM OF E-BIKE AND E-BIKE HAVING SAME | March 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17709687 | METHOD AND CONTROL SYSTEM FOR GENERATING AN OPTIMAL DRIVING PROFILE FOR VEHICLES PROVIDED WITH ELECTRIC PROPULSION | March 2022 | September 2024 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17649827 | CONSTRUCTION MACHINE, DISPLAY APPARATUS OF CONSTRUCTION MACHINE, AND MANAGEMENT APPARATUS OF CONSTRUCTION MACHINE | February 2022 | September 2024 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17632380 | CONTROL DEVICE, DRIVE DEVICE, ELECTRIC POWER STEERING DEVICE, AND CONTROL METHOD | February 2022 | January 2025 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17582407 | CAPABILITY-AWARE PATHFINDING FOR AUTONOMOUS MOBILE ROBOTS | January 2022 | August 2024 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17645009 | LAYOUT GENERATION DEVICE, LAYOUT GENERATION METHOD, AND LAYOUT GENERATION PROGRAM | December 2021 | October 2024 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17644583 | COMPONENT WEAR MONITORING BASED ON STRAIN DATA | December 2021 | October 2024 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17611688 | REMOTE OPERATION SYSTEM AND REMOTE OPERATION SERVER | November 2021 | December 2024 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17519705 | ROAD CONDITION DETECTION SYSTEMS AND METHODS | November 2021 | January 2025 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17515452 | AUTOMATIC DETECTION OF DATA FOR ANNOTATION FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE PERCEPTION | October 2021 | December 2024 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17467201 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING OF CORRECTION INFORMATION OF VEHICLE SENSOR | September 2021 | August 2024 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17317706 | DEPARTURE TIME DURATION FOR A VEHICLE | May 2021 | July 2025 | Abandon | 50 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17211933 | LOCATION-BASED VEHICLE OPERATION | March 2021 | November 2024 | Allow | 43 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17131454 | JUST-IN-TIME CONVEYANCE DELIVERY | December 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17070312 | VEHICLE LOCATION INFORMATION CORRECTION BASED ON ANOTHER VEHICLE | October 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 45 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16444065 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ACTIVE THERMAL MANAGEMENT | June 2019 | February 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SCOTT, CHRISTOPHER DARREN.
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 SCOTT, CHRISTOPHER DARREN works in Art Unit 3658 and has examined 11 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 54.5%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 38 months.
Examiner SCOTT, CHRISTOPHER DARREN's allowance rate of 54.5% places them in the 15% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by SCOTT, CHRISTOPHER DARREN receive 3.27 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 91% 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 SCOTT, CHRISTOPHER DARREN is 38 months. This places the examiner in the 30% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -10.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SCOTT, CHRISTOPHER DARREN. This interview benefit is in the 3% 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, 21.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 25% 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.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 16.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 19% 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.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 98% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 98% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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.
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.
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.