Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17129407 | PROCESSING DATA FROM ATTACHED AND AFFIXED DEVICES ON TRANSPORT | December 2020 | May 2024 | Allow | 41 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15734371 | DEVICE, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRANSPORTING OCCUPANTS OF VEHICLES TO A LOCATION FOR ASSISTANCE | December 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17102480 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DATA-DRIVEN ENERGY MANAGEMENT OF A VEHICLE FLEET WITH ELECTRIC VEHICLES | November 2020 | April 2025 | Allow | 53 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16980413 | Automatic Traveling System | September 2020 | November 2023 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17008543 | Chassis Input Intention Prediction Via Brain Machine Interface And Driver Monitoring Sensor Fusion | August 2020 | May 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16910395 | CONVOLUTION OPERATOR SELECTION | June 2020 | November 2024 | Allow | 53 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16882720 | METHOD OF AUTOMATICALLY FOLLOWING HUMAN FOR PURIFYING AIR NEARBY | May 2020 | November 2023 | Abandon | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16804491 | DIRECTING AND COMMUNICATING DATA TO A FLIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | February 2020 | December 2023 | Abandon | 46 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16680617 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADJUSTING VEHICLE SETTINGS BASED ON HEIGHT OF PORTABLE WIRELESS DEVICE | November 2019 | August 2024 | Abandon | 57 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16488978 | SENSING AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM FOR ROTORCRAFT | August 2019 | March 2025 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner HOLMAN, JOHN D.
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, 33.3% 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.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner HOLMAN, JOHN D works in Art Unit 3666 and has examined 10 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 40.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 48 months.
Examiner HOLMAN, JOHN D's allowance rate of 40.0% places them in the 8% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by HOLMAN, JOHN D receive 3.40 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 90% 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 HOLMAN, JOHN D is 48 months. This places the examiner in the 10% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +80.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HOLMAN, JOHN D. This interview benefit is in the 99% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 18.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 21% 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 enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 14.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 17% 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, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 19% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 97% 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 42% 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.