Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19001410 | OUTPUT METHOD, OUTPUT APPARATUS, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM THAT NON-TRANSITORILY STORES PROGRAM | December 2024 | October 2025 | Abandon | 9 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18029639 | CLINICAL RECOMMENDATION METHOD, CLINICAL RECOMMENDATION APPARATUS, AND COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM | March 2023 | October 2025 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18190481 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF DATA FROM MANAGED AND UNMANAGED DEVICES | March 2023 | July 2025 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17982076 | EARLY DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT METHODS FOR PENDING SEPTIC SHOCK | November 2022 | October 2024 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17697952 | REMOTE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT SYSTEM AND REMOTE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT METHOD | March 2022 | December 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17478322 | TEMPERATURE MONITORING WEARABLE WITH AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ENGINE | September 2021 | February 2026 | Abandon | 53 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17358239 | METHOD OF HUB COMMUNICATION, PROCESSING, DISPLAY, AND CLOUD ANALYTICS | June 2021 | August 2025 | Abandon | 50 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17218088 | Secure Immunity Information Transmission System And Network | March 2021 | April 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17107407 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS OF PREDICTING PPE NEEDS | November 2020 | September 2024 | Allow | 45 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16764092 | USER INTERFACE FOR MANAGING A MULTIPLE DIAGNOSTIC ENGINE ENVIRONMENT | May 2020 | June 2025 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16842010 | RECOMMENDATION PRIORITIZATION AND TASK THROTTLING | April 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16622384 | INSULIN TITRATION ALGORITHM BASED ON PATIENT PROFILE | December 2019 | December 2024 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16618426 | RISK ASSESSMENT OF DISSEMINATED INTRAVASCULAR COAGULATION | December 2019 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16686571 | Methods And Systems For Remote Analysis Of Medical Image Records | November 2019 | July 2025 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16556647 | DYNAMIC ACTIVITY RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM | August 2019 | October 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 16447393 | USER-AWARE EXPLANATION SELECTION FOR MACHINE LEARNING SYSTEMS | June 2019 | February 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16434183 | EFFICIENT DIAGNOSIS CONFIRMATION OF A SUSPECT CONDITION FOR CERTIFICATION AND/OR RE-CERTIFICATION BY A CLINICIAN | June 2019 | October 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16348314 | PATIENT MONITORING SYSTEMS AND METHODS | May 2019 | October 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ABDULLAH, AAISHA.
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, 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 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 ABDULLAH, AAISHA works in Art Unit 3681 and has examined 13 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 30.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 10000 months.
Examiner ABDULLAH, AAISHA's allowance rate of 30.8% places them in the 4% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by ABDULLAH, AAISHA receive 4.31 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 98% 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 ABDULLAH, AAISHA is 10000 months. This places the examiner in the 1% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +44.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ABDULLAH, AAISHA. This interview benefit is in the 90% 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, 11.1% 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 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 3% 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, 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 25.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 3% 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.
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.