Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18294026 | CONTROL ARRANGEMENT FOR OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE LOCKING SYSTEM | January 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 16 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18071602 | BOLT FASTENING STRUCTURE AND ANTI-VIBRATION DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME | November 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17972564 | CHILD CARRIER | October 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 32 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17757423 | SCREW DRIVE | June 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17312047 | DOOR LOCK | June 2021 | December 2023 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17183581 | LID LOCK UNIT ATTACHMENT STRUCTURE | February 2021 | July 2023 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17257658 | LOCKING SYSTEM AND A METHODS FOR MANUFACTURING AND USING THE SAME | January 2021 | January 2023 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17013841 | FASTENER STRUCTURE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME | September 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 55 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 16840711 | WATER-TIGHT SEALING SYSTEM FOR A BATHTUB DOOR | April 2020 | March 2023 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16828931 | MAGNETIC LOCK STRUCTURE WITH LARGE ANTI-PULLING AREA | March 2020 | December 2022 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16638996 | COVER LOCKING MECHANISM | February 2020 | December 2022 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16751611 | POSITION INDICATOR FOR BALL LOCK | January 2020 | February 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16565559 | BRUSH SEAL | September 2019 | September 2020 | Abandon | 12 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16273158 | SEAL RETAINER FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE | February 2019 | September 2019 | Abandon | 7 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16150838 | VEHICLE DOOR LOCK DEVICE | October 2018 | November 2019 | Abandon | 13 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15059633 | LOCK | March 2016 | July 2018 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13705598 | UNIVERSAL CLOSURE AND METHOD OF LUBRICATION | December 2012 | November 2016 | Abandon | 48 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13434916 | SAFETY DEVICE FOR VEHICLE DOOR LATCH SYSTEMS | March 2012 | April 2014 | Abandon | 24 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 13358734 | LOST MOTION CAM ACTUATING DEVICE | January 2012 | September 2013 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13286958 | Steering Shaft Lock Actuator | November 2011 | June 2013 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13091687 | DOOR LATCH MECHANISM | April 2011 | September 2013 | Allow | 29 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12953617 | FASTENING STRUCTURE FOR PORTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE | November 2010 | September 2013 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12951527 | Pawl Isolation Disk | November 2010 | January 2014 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12922617 | PIVOT LEVER ACTUATION HAVING SAFETY DEVICE | November 2010 | January 2014 | Abandon | 40 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12944026 | Latching Mechanism for Airtight Container | November 2010 | November 2013 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12851386 | Lock for a Vehicle Slide-Out Room | August 2010 | January 2014 | Abandon | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12816767 | LOAD SENSING MAGNETIC LOCK | June 2010 | April 2014 | Abandon | 46 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 12657667 | Sash window and door transportation clip | January 2010 | November 2013 | Abandon | 46 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12564227 | Door Lock Apparatus | September 2009 | September 2013 | Allow | 48 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 12308157 | Locking Device | September 2009 | August 2013 | Allow | 56 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 12553347 | VEHICLE LATCH WITH SECONDARY ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN CAM AND AUXILIARY PAWL | September 2009 | August 2013 | Allow | 47 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 12529226 | DOUBLE LOCK OVERRIDE MECHANISM FOR VEHICULAR PASSIVE ENTRY DOOR LATCH | August 2009 | July 2013 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12486837 | ADJUSTABLE CAM FOR CAM LOCK | June 2009 | January 2014 | Abandon | 55 | 4 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 12427516 | TERTIARY LOCK FOR PIVOT DOOR THRUST REVERSER | April 2009 | October 2013 | Allow | 53 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 12380154 | Low leak O-ring seal | February 2009 | September 2014 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12222866 | DEVICE LATCH HOOK AND ATTACHMENT DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME | August 2008 | September 2013 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 12144276 | Marine Line Hauling Device Assembly | June 2008 | January 2014 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 12120218 | VEHICULAR WHEEL LOCK | May 2008 | August 2013 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11883647 | SNAP-TYPE LOCKING DEVICE | August 2007 | June 2013 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 11797689 | Metal gasket | May 2007 | September 2014 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 11787301 | Brush seal | April 2007 | September 2014 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11723014 | FLAT GASKET, ESPECIALLY A CYLINDER HEAD GASKET | March 2007 | September 2014 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11628027 | VEHICLE HANDLE | November 2006 | July 2013 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10590638 | Lock to be Mounted in Openings in a Thin Wall | August 2006 | October 2013 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11351973 | SEAL WITH CONTROLLABLE PUMP RATE | February 2006 | September 2014 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11348714 | Method of retaining a dynamic seal in a bore that has a draft | February 2006 | September 2014 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10954200 | Seal structure | October 2004 | September 2014 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner FULTON, KRISTINA ROSE.
With a 42.9% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is above the USPTO average, indicating that appeals have better success here than typical.
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, 38.5% 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.
✓ Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner FULTON, KRISTINA ROSE works in Art Unit 3675 and has examined 46 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 45.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 46 months.
Examiner FULTON, KRISTINA ROSE's allowance rate of 45.7% places them in the 6% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by FULTON, KRISTINA ROSE receive 2.48 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 85% 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 FULTON, KRISTINA ROSE is 46 months. This places the examiner in the 2% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +20.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by FULTON, KRISTINA ROSE. This interview benefit is in the 68% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 15.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 6% 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 33.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 42% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 100.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 74% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. If you have strong arguments, a PAC request may result in favorable reconsideration.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 15% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 28.6% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 85% 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 2.2% of allowed cases (in the 78% 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 36% 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.