Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18745815 | METHOD FOR STARTING ELECTRIC VEHICLE BY USING EXCHANGEABLE BATTERY PACK EMPLOYING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SCHEME | June 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18600153 | FLIGHT CONTROL METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE, STORAGE MEDIUM AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS | March 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18436483 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DATA PROCESSING OF MISSION REQUESTS TO AUTOMATICALLY NAVIGATE UNMANNED VEHICLES | February 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18418865 | DOOR CLOSING DEVICE | January 2024 | June 2025 | Abandon | 17 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 18393679 | SHELF POSITIONING METHOD OF A TRANSPORTING DEVICE AND TRANSPORTING DEVICE CAPABLE OF POSITIONING A SHELF | December 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18144792 | SELF-PUMPING SPRING PRELOAD SYSTEM | May 2023 | April 2025 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18068996 | INSULATING ASSEMBLIES, METHODS OF INSTALLING INSULATION, AND RELATED INSTALLATION APPARATUSES | December 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 30 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 18054257 | GOODS BOX TAKE-OUT MECHANISM, DEVICE, AND METHOD, AND TRANSPORT ROBOT | November 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 32 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17922433 | CREATION OF A MAP OF THE SURROUNDINGS | October 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17913968 | Traffic Control Server, Traffic Control System, and Display Device Capable of Wireless Communication With Traffic Control Server | September 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17850159 | BRAKE CONTROL APPARATUS AND METHOD OF VEHICLE | June 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17825285 | MODULAR POWER PLANT FOR A ROTORCRAFT AND ASSOCIATED ROTORCRAFT | May 2022 | September 2025 | Allow | 40 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17401341 | MONITORING AND SCORING PASSENGER ATTENTION | August 2021 | July 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17376775 | CANTILEVER PLATFORM BOARD ASSEMBLY | July 2021 | July 2025 | Abandon | 48 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13767370 | EFFICIENT DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF STORAGE MEDIA IN A STORAGE MEDIUM LIBRARY | February 2013 | July 2014 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12684660 | METHODS, SYSTEMS AND APPARATUS FOR RAPID EXCHANGE OF WORK MATERIAL | January 2010 | June 2014 | Allow | 53 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 11782332 | UNIT FOR PREPARING GROUPS OF PRODUCTS IN LAYERS FOR PALLETIZING | July 2007 | September 2009 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11812333 | RING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | June 2007 | December 2009 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11812332 | RING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | June 2007 | November 2009 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11713604 | INTUITIVE CONTROLLER FOR VERTICAL LIFT ASSIST DEVICE | March 2007 | April 2010 | Allow | 38 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11562309 | METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR POSITIONING A SUBSTRATE RELATIVE TO A SUPPORT STAGE | November 2006 | October 2008 | Allow | 23 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 11530074 | ELECTRONIC COMPONENT INSPECTION APPARATUS | September 2006 | April 2010 | Allow | 43 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11487202 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR POSITIONING OBJECTS/MAILPIECES | July 2006 | April 2010 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11334978 | SLAT CONVEYOR HAVING CONVEYING SLATS AND LIFTING SLATS | January 2006 | April 2006 | Allow | 3 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10542348 | MACHINE FOR ORIENTING, STRAIGHTENING AND ALIGNING PLASTIC VESSELS OR BOTTLES | July 2005 | March 2007 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11146048 | CIRCULATION TYPE LINE-UP CONVEYING APPARATUS | June 2005 | March 2007 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10906658 | FILM CONVEYING MECHANISM | March 2005 | February 2007 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 11068516 | WHEELCHAIR LIFT WITH A ROTARY SENSOR USED TO DETERMINE LIFT POSITION | February 2005 | November 2008 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 11010169 | VIBRATORY CONVEYOR DECK WITH ADJUSTABLE CURVATURE | December 2004 | September 2008 | Allow | 46 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 10992900 | BOWL FOR VIBRATORY FEEDER | November 2004 | October 2007 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 10931948 | SORTING APPARATUS WITH ARBITRARY USER-SPECIFIED SEQUENCE CONTROL | September 2004 | March 2008 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 10913227 | UNIT FOR FEEDING FILTERS TO A FILTER ASSEMBLY MACHINE | August 2004 | March 2007 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10644185 | SUBSTRATE LOADING AND UNLOADING APPARATUS | August 2003 | December 2009 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BURGESS, RAMYA PRAKASAM.
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 BURGESS, RAMYA PRAKASAM works in Art Unit 3661 and has examined 21 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 90.5%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 35 months.
Examiner BURGESS, RAMYA PRAKASAM's allowance rate of 90.5% places them in the 74% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by BURGESS, RAMYA PRAKASAM receive 1.90 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 46% 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 BURGESS, RAMYA PRAKASAM is 35 months. This places the examiner in the 40% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +11.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BURGESS, RAMYA PRAKASAM. This interview benefit is in the 45% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 45.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 95% 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 50.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 76% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.
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, 50.0% 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.
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 4.8% of allowed cases (in the 85% 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 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.