Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19025877 | PATIENT-POSITIONING SYSTEM, COMPUTER-CONTROL AND DATA-INTEGRATION SYSTEM, SURGICAL COMPONENTRY, AND SURGICAL METHODS OF USING SAME | January 2025 | March 2026 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 19011491 | HEAD AND NECK CRADLE | January 2025 | February 2026 | Allow | 13 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 19010243 | Layered Yarn and Weighted Blanket for Deep Pressure Therapy | January 2025 | February 2026 | Allow | 14 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18960652 | MULTI-ALERT LIGHTS FOR HOSPITAL BED | November 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18956486 | MATTRESS DEGRADATION DETERMINATION USING RADAR | November 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18937426 | Patient Transport System Including A Patient Transport Apparatus And Loading System For The Same | November 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 15 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18918167 | HYPOMOCHLION OF AN OPERATING TABLE | October 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 16 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18823025 | MATTRESS WITH FLAME BARRIER CAP AND RELATED METHOD | September 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 16 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18736714 | BEDSORE PREVENTION DEVICE, FURNITURE SUPPORT ELEMENT COMPRISING SUCH A DEVICE, AND METHOD OF EQUIPPING A SUPPORT ELEMENT WITH SUCH A PREVENTION DEVICE | June 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18699700 | MAT | April 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18695522 | ELASTIC CUSHION, ADDITIONAL ELASTIC CUSHION LAYER, AND FURNITURE | March 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18384408 | Patient Support Apparatus Having A Skirt Barrier | October 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18338694 | PERSONALIZED PILLOW AND/OR MATTRESS SELECTION | June 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18207446 | Bed Skirt Assembly | June 2023 | February 2026 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18304532 | BED RAIL ASSEMBLY | April 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18052540 | MOBILE RADIOLUCENT IMAGING TABLE | November 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 49 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17972808 | Inflatable Pillow, Compartmental Pillow, and Pillow Dispenser | October 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17822561 | MATTRESS ASSEMBLY WITH REDUCED HEAT INDEX | August 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17895550 | BED SCALE NOISE COMPENSATION USING A REFERENCE TRANSDUCER | August 2022 | November 2025 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17869509 | SUPPORT CUSHIONS INCLUDING A SUPPORT INSERT SURROUNDED BY FOAM RAILS FOR DIRECTING AIR FLOW, METHODS FOR CONTROLLING SURFACE TEMPERATURE OF SAME, AND METHODS FOR MANUFACTURING SAME | July 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 42 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17726138 | SYSTEM FOR PRONE POSITIONING OF SURGICAL PATIENTS | April 2022 | November 2025 | Allow | 43 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15259035 | BEDHEAD AND COLLAPSIBLE BED FRAME WITH THE BEDHEAD | September 2016 | May 2017 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14990435 | METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND DEVICES FOR COMBINATION DUVET COVER AND COMFORTER | January 2016 | September 2017 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14063660 | NURSING AND INFANT SUPPORT PILLOW WITH ACCESSORY UNIT | October 2013 | February 2017 | Allow | 39 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13243570 | Nursing and Infant Support Pillow | September 2011 | December 2017 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12648865 | MATTRESS DESIGN | December 2009 | December 2010 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11042678 | MATTRESS DESIGN | January 2005 | November 2009 | Allow | 57 | 7 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CONLEY, FREDRICK C.
With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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, 25.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable 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 shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner CONLEY, FREDRICK C works in Art Unit 3679 and has examined 6 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 39 months.
Examiner CONLEY, FREDRICK C's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 100% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by CONLEY, FREDRICK C receive 3.50 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 94% 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 CONLEY, FREDRICK C is 39 months. This places the examiner in the 28% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CONLEY, FREDRICK C. 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, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 14% 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 25.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 34% 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, 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 80.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 73% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 25.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows above-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. The mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) provides an opportunity for reconsideration.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 133.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 97% 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 39% 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 42% 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.