Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18845021 | MONITORING SYSTEM, MONITORING METHOD, AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | September 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18430508 | MAP DATA GENERATION DEVICE, MAP DATA GENERATION SYSTEM, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | February 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18513683 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OBSTACLE ANALYSIS ASSOCIATED WITH A TRAVEL PATH OF A MACHINE | November 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18384227 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANAGING EVENT IN VEHICLE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | October 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 18175217 | POWER CONSERVATION CONTROL METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR VEHICLE, AND READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | February 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18112585 | MAP IMAGE DISPLAY DEVICE | February 2023 | February 2026 | Abandon | 35 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18170130 | VEHICLE ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | February 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 18007481 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM | January 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18017466 | TRAFFIC MONITORING APPARATUS, TRAFFIC MONITORING SYSTEM, TRAFFIC MONITORING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | January 2023 | March 2026 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18096252 | ADJUSTING ARRIVAL TIME BASED ON DESTINATION CONDITIONS | January 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 37 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17987950 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DIAGNOSING VEHICLE BATTERY BY USING BIG DATA | November 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18051363 | MAP BASED FARMING FOR WINDROWER OPERATION | October 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 38 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18049293 | System and Method for Controlling Motion of One or More Devices | October 2022 | November 2025 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17906711 | OBSTACLE AVOIDANCE METHOD FOR ROBOT, OBSTACLE AVOIDANCE DEVICE FOR ROBOT, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | September 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17783998 | DEEP LEARNING-BASED MARINE OBJECT CLASSIFICATION USING 360-DEGREE IMAGES | June 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 45 | 3 | 2 | Yes | No |
| 17727050 | OPERATING AIRCRAFT PROPULSION SYSTEM DURING ENGINE-INOPERATIVE EVENT | April 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 45 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17723382 | VEHICLE OFF ROUTE DETECTION | April 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17680023 | PEDESTRIAN TRAJECTORY PREDICTION APPARATUS | February 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 47 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17610576 | AUTONOMOUS MINE VEHICLE OPERATION | November 2021 | February 2026 | Allow | 51 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17449306 | VISIBILITY DISTANCE ESTIMATION USING DEEP LEARNING IN AUTONOMOUS MACHINE APPLICATIONS | September 2021 | November 2025 | Allow | 49 | 4 | 2 | Yes | No |
| 16767040 | Method for Adjusting Values of a Plurality of Parameters of at Least One Controller of an Electric Drive System, and Electric Drive System | June 2021 | January 2026 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 2 | 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, 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 HOLMAN, JOHN D works in Art Unit 3667 and has examined 3 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 51 months.
Examiner HOLMAN, JOHN D'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 HOLMAN, JOHN D receive 3.67 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 95% 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 51 months. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HOLMAN, JOHN D. This interview benefit is in the 16% 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, 30.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 58% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 3% 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.
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 100% 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 38% 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 41% 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.