Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18823457 | HIGH SPEED DETERMINATION OF INTERSECTION TRAVERSAL WITHOUT ROAD DATA | September 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18729989 | METHOD AND INSTALLATION FOR WORKING A PLOT OF LAND WITH AT LEAST ONE REPLENISHED AGRICULTURAL ROBOT | July 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18467569 | DIGITAL TWIN-BASED SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REDUCING PEAK POWER AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN A PHYSICAL SYSTEM | September 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18462705 | SERVER, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND TERMINAL | September 2023 | March 2026 | Abandon | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18459313 | SYNCHRONIZED LIGHTING FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES | August 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18360192 | SMART SYSTEMS AND CONTROL LOGIC FOR AUTOMATED SELF-DETECT AND VIOLATION-NOTIFICATION MODE FOR CONNECTED VEHICLES | July 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18034205 | DRIVER ASSISTANCE MODULE FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE | April 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 31 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18093987 | VEHICLE BEHAVIOR CONTROL SYSTEM | January 2023 | February 2026 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18052511 | NAVIGATIONAL CONSTRAINT CONTROL SYSTEM | November 2022 | November 2025 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17953426 | VEHICLE | September 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 40 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17821027 | AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS AND METHODS WITH AUTOMATED RUNWAY CONDITION INFORMATION | August 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 42 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17552633 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR VEHICLE DRIVE MODE SELECTION | December 2021 | November 2025 | Allow | 47 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17499024 | Systems and Methods for Mitigating Third Party Contingencies | October 2021 | November 2025 | Allow | 49 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17496453 | Estimation of Target Location and Sensor Misalignment Angles | October 2021 | December 2025 | Allow | 50 | 5 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 17439805 | Method and Device for Multi-Sensor Data Fusion For Automated and Autonomous Vehicles | September 2021 | December 2025 | Allow | 51 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner LEVY, MERRITT E.
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, 66.7% 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 LEVY, MERRITT E works in Art Unit 3663 and has examined 4 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 50 months.
Examiner LEVY, MERRITT E'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.
On average, applications examined by LEVY, MERRITT E receive 4.25 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 98% 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 LEVY, MERRITT E is 50 months. This places the examiner in the 6% 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, 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.
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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 98% percentile among all examiners. 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.