Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17139788 | TOWARD SIMULATION OF DRIVER BEHAVIOR IN DRIVING AUTOMATION | December 2020 | February 2024 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17133634 | VEHICLE CONTROL METHOD FOR PLATOONING, VEHICLE MOUNTED APPARATUS AND VEHICLE | December 2020 | February 2023 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17126302 | PERSONAL PAPARAZZO DRONES | December 2020 | September 2023 | Abandon | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17123125 | MOBILE ROBOT ORBITING PHOTOGRAPHY PATH CONTROL METHODS AND APPARATUSES | December 2020 | June 2023 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17124297 | OFF-SCREEN OBJECT INDICATIONS FOR A VEHICLE USER INTERFACE | December 2020 | June 2023 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17118440 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR 3D MODELING | December 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17117423 | BOUNDARY DETECTION DEVICE AND METHOD THEREOF | December 2020 | September 2023 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17103764 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OPTIMAL VEHICLE DOWNFORCE ALLOCATION | November 2020 | July 2023 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17101919 | SYSTEM, METHOD, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND VEHICLE FOR AUTOMATED VALET PARKING | November 2020 | December 2022 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17056308 | SYSTEM AND METHOD USING IMAGE ANALYSIS FOR CONTROLLING A FLIGHT PATH OF A SURFACE INSPECTION UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE | November 2020 | August 2023 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16949624 | ACTIVE GIMBAL STABILIZED AERIAL VISUAL-INERTIAL NAVIGATION SYSTEM | November 2020 | July 2024 | Abandon | 44 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17088499 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING ACTIVE SUSPENSION OF VEHICLE | November 2020 | November 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16756768 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPPED WITH AT LEAST ONE REMOVABLE COVERING | October 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 51 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17042706 | WEED CONTROL VEHICLE | September 2020 | October 2024 | Abandon | 49 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17041497 | AERIAL VEHICLES, METHODS OF IMAGING A TUNNEL AND METHODS OF IMAGING A SHAFT | September 2020 | June 2024 | Abandon | 44 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17033036 | VEHICLE AND CONTROLLING METHOD THEREOF | September 2020 | June 2024 | Abandon | 44 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16898995 | APPARATUS FOR PREVENTING PEDESTRIAN COLLISION ACCIDENT, SYSTEM HAVING THE SAME, AND METHOD THEREOF | June 2020 | May 2024 | Abandon | 47 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16767921 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING DRONE DATA BY MATCHING USER WITH PROVIDER | May 2020 | February 2023 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16854658 | USING DRONE DATA TO GENERATE HIGH-DEFINITION MAP FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE NAVIGATION | April 2020 | October 2023 | Abandon | 42 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16755273 | AGRICULTURAL IMAGING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE | April 2020 | September 2023 | Abandon | 41 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16638991 | Improved Multirotor Aircraft and Interface Device | February 2020 | March 2024 | Allow | 49 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16679700 | MEASUREMENT OF THREE DIMENSIONAL COORDINATES USING AN UNMANNED AERIAL DRONE | November 2019 | May 2023 | Abandon | 42 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16542660 | AUTONOMOUS ROBOT TO REMOVE PATHOGENS FROM A TARGET AREA | August 2019 | February 2024 | Abandon | 54 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16536509 | Path Follower with Limited Steering Rate Controller | August 2019 | July 2023 | Abandon | 47 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner DUNNE, KENNETH MICHAEL.
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, 0.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is less effective here than in most other areas.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner DUNNE, KENNETH MICHAEL works in Art Unit 3669 and has examined 24 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 45.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.
Examiner DUNNE, KENNETH MICHAEL's allowance rate of 45.8% places them in the 11% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by DUNNE, KENNETH MICHAEL receive 2.79 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 78% 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 DUNNE, KENNETH MICHAEL is 42 months. This places the examiner in the 20% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -8.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by DUNNE, KENNETH MICHAEL. This interview benefit is in the 4% 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, 11.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 7% 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 10.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 11% 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, 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 93% 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 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.