USPTO Examiner BURGESS JOSEPH D - Art Unit 3681

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
19079691Healthcare Object Recognition, Systems And MethodsMarch 2025May 2025Allow200YesNo
18679232SOFTWARE APPLICATION FOR PATIENT CARE AND RELATED DEVICE, SYSTEM, AND METHODMay 2024March 2025Allow900YesNo
18417752SENIOR LIVING ENGAGEMENT AND CARE SUPPORT PLATFORMSJanuary 2024April 2025Allow1500YesNo
18562283NEUROSTIMULATION PARAMETER AUTHENTICATION AND EXPIRATION SYSTEM FOR NEUROSTIMULATIONNovember 2023May 2025Allow1800YesNo
18481312SENIOR LIVING ENGAGEMENT AND CARE SUPPORT PLATFORMSOctober 2023July 2024Allow1000YesNo
18550367INTERPRETATION OF INTRAOPERATIVE SENSOR DATA USING CONCEPT GRAPH NEURAL NETWORKSSeptember 2023March 2025Allow1800YesNo
18296024SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CREATING AND SELECTING MODELS FOR PREDICTING MEDICAL CONDITIONSApril 2023June 2025Allow2710YesNo
18127969METHODS AND SYSTEMS PROCESSING DATAMarch 2023February 2025Allow2300YesNo
17851323FLUID DELIVERY EVENT TRACKING AND TRANSACTION MANAGEMENTJune 2022June 2024Allow2441YesYes
17546848MEDICAL DEVICE MANAGEMENTDecember 2021June 2025Abandon4320YesNo
17079872SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING ORTHODONTIC TREATMENTOctober 2020March 2025Allow5330NoNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner BURGESS, JOSEPH D - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner BURGESS, JOSEPH D works in Art Unit 3681 and has examined 8 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 87.5%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 24 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner BURGESS, JOSEPH D's allowance rate of 87.5% places them in the 63% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by BURGESS, JOSEPH D receive 1.25 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 23% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by BURGESS, JOSEPH D is 24 months. This places the examiner in the 74% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a -14.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BURGESS, JOSEPH D. This interview benefit is in the 1% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 42.9% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 94% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.

After-Final Amendment Practice

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 1% 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.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 36% 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 36% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may come directly without a separate action for formal matters.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • RCEs are effective: This examiner has a high allowance rate after RCE compared to others. If you receive a final rejection and have substantive amendments or arguments, an RCE is likely to be successful.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.