Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17256265 | Travel Assistance Method and Travel Assistance Device | December 2020 | September 2024 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17133190 | AIRCRAFT AUTO LANDING SYSTEM | December 2020 | June 2025 | Allow | 53 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17112042 | EXTRAVEHICULAR AUGMENTED REALITY | December 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16953149 | AIRCRAFT SIGN PROJECTION SYSTEM | November 2020 | March 2024 | Abandon | 40 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17076745 | Method and Apparatus for Remote Operation of Motorized Two-Wheeled Vehicle | October 2020 | April 2024 | Abandon | 42 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17037017 | FOREIGN OBJECT DETECTION WITH SURFEL MAPS | September 2020 | January 2024 | Allow | 40 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16971884 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING ROUTE IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | August 2020 | September 2024 | Allow | 49 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16997444 | AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE AND METHOD FOR PLANNING U-TURN PATH THEREOF | August 2020 | February 2024 | Abandon | 42 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16742924 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM | January 2020 | September 2023 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner PEDERSEN, DAVID RUBEN.
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, 100.0% 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 PEDERSEN, DAVID RUBEN works in Art Unit 3667 and has examined 9 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 44.4%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 44 months.
Examiner PEDERSEN, DAVID RUBEN's allowance rate of 44.4% places them in the 10% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by PEDERSEN, DAVID RUBEN receive 3.44 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 PEDERSEN, DAVID RUBEN is 44 months. This places the examiner in the 16% 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 PEDERSEN, DAVID RUBEN. 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, 15.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 13% 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, 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 43% 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.