Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16907537 | MAINTAINING TORQUE WRENCHES USING A PREDICTIVE MODEL | June 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 49 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16253116 | METHODS AND DEVICES FOR MAXIMIZING OIL PRODUCTION AND OIL RECOVERY FOR OIL WELLS WITH HIGH GAS-TO-OIL RATIO | January 2019 | August 2019 | Allow | 7 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15960950 | GRASS COLLECTING ASSEMBLY FOR GRASS MOWER | April 2018 | May 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15600476 | ACTUATION DART FOR WELLBORE OPERATIONS, WELLBORE TREATMENT APPARATUS AND METHOD | May 2017 | March 2019 | Allow | 22 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 15447099 | Hydraulic Fracturing with Strong, Lightweight, Low Profile Diverters | March 2017 | October 2017 | Allow | 7 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15197158 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR STIMULATING AND RESTIMULATING A WELL | June 2016 | May 2018 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15162273 | Milling Well Casing Using Electromagnetic Pulse | May 2016 | May 2017 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14911976 | CENTRALISER | February 2016 | June 2018 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14911447 | SACRIFICIAL SPACER FOR WELL TOOL INNER SEAL | February 2016 | June 2019 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14842181 | Hydrostatic Setting Tool | September 2015 | September 2016 | Allow | 13 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14654788 | SYMMETRICAL SEAL | June 2015 | January 2018 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14616528 | MILL-DRILL CUTTER AND DRILL BIT | February 2015 | September 2017 | Allow | 32 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14574243 | SYSTEM FOR OPERATING A DRILLING RIG WITH A RETRACTING GUIDE DOLLY AND A TOP DRIVE | December 2014 | November 2015 | Allow | 11 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14532594 | MAGNETIC RETRIEVAL APPARATUS | November 2014 | September 2018 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14491664 | Completion Method Featuring a Thermally Actuated Lock Assembly for a Telescoping Joint | September 2014 | February 2018 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14490997 | CROSSOVER TOOL, METHOD OF MAKING A CROSSOVER TOOL AND TWO PARTS OF A TWO-PART CROSSOVER TOOL | September 2014 | December 2018 | Allow | 51 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14489694 | DOWNHOLE SYSTEM HAVING SELECTIVE LOCKING APPARATUS AND METHOD | September 2014 | December 2017 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14490094 | Pipe Conveyed Logging While Fishing | September 2014 | September 2017 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14466924 | Downhole Tool with Collapsible or Expandable Split Ring | August 2014 | July 2017 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13879319 | MILLING WELL CASING USING ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE | April 2013 | February 2016 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13844057 | INDUCTIVE SHEARING OF DRILLING PIPE | March 2013 | December 2015 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13774989 | SUBSEA CASING DRILLING SYSTEM | February 2013 | July 2016 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13715535 | EXPANDABLE SEAT ASSEMBLY FOR ISOLATING FRACTURE ZONES IN A WELL | December 2012 | February 2016 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13692839 | WELLHEAD FLOWBACK CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD | December 2012 | March 2017 | Allow | 51 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13679997 | SYSTEM FOR OPERATING A DRILLING RIG WITH A RETRACTING GUIDE DOLLY AND A TOP DRIVE | November 2012 | September 2015 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13556015 | Method and Apparatus for Vibrating Horizontal Drill String to Improve Weight Transfer | July 2012 | November 2016 | Allow | 51 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13536591 | DRILL ROD SHOCK TOOL | June 2012 | February 2016 | Allow | 43 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13405758 | Hydrostatic Setting Tool | February 2012 | April 2015 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13343108 | DOUBLE-ACTING SHOCK DAMPER FOR A DOWNHOLE ASSEMBLY | January 2012 | December 2015 | Allow | 48 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SEBESTA, CHRISTOPHER J.
With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.
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.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner SEBESTA, CHRISTOPHER J works in Art Unit 3671 and has examined 29 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 96.6%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 36 months.
Examiner SEBESTA, CHRISTOPHER J's allowance rate of 96.6% places them in the 86% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by SEBESTA, CHRISTOPHER J receive 2.24 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 58% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by SEBESTA, CHRISTOPHER J is 36 months. This places the examiner in the 37% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -3.8% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SEBESTA, CHRISTOPHER J. This interview benefit is in the 7% 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 61% 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 50.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 77% 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.
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 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 21% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 6% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 10.3% of allowed cases (in the 94% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
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.