Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18603361 | CONTACTLESS CHECKOUT SYSTEM WITH THEFT DETECTION | March 2024 | September 2025 | Allow | 18 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18073064 | AN APPARATUS FOR ENHANCING LONGEVITY AND METHOD FOR ITS USE | December 2022 | August 2024 | Abandon | 20 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17892836 | MULTI-FURCATED ALLOCATION SYSTEM | August 2022 | December 2025 | Abandon | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17496387 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR MEASURING AND IMPROVING A SLEEP ENVIRONMENT | October 2021 | August 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17493635 | System, Method, and Apparatus for Facilitating Customer Relations and Business Administration | October 2021 | February 2026 | Abandon | 52 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17478052 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REMOTE, VIRTUAL, IN-HOME, AND HYBRID VIRTUAL-IN-HOME VETERINARY MEDICINE | September 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17471630 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DYNAMICALLY IDENTIFYING CHANGE IN CUSTOMER BEHAVIOUR AND PROVIDING APPROPRIATE PERSONALIZED RECOMMENDATIONS | September 2021 | July 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17466736 | DISEASE JUDGEMENT METHOD | September 2021 | December 2025 | Abandon | 52 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16903851 | TRAINING AN AGENT-BASED HEALTHCARE ASSISTANT MODEL | June 2020 | October 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16469729 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING AN IMPACT OF AN ACTIVE SUB-STANCE ON AN INFANT | June 2019 | December 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16377011 | Patient Care System | April 2019 | December 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | No | No |
| 15905131 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO FACILITATE STORAGE AND/OR RETRIEVAL OF HEALTHCARE INFORMATION | February 2018 | September 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13826441 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRANSITIONING PATIENT CARE FROM SIGNAL-BASED MONITORING TO RISK-BASED MONITORING | March 2013 | May 2014 | Allow | 14 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13555654 | PREDICTING SUCCESS OF A PROPOSED PROJECT | July 2012 | September 2012 | Allow | 2 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13155580 | OPTIMIZING A SHARED SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM | June 2011 | October 2012 | Allow | 16 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12883617 | PREDICTING SUCCESS OF A PROPOSED PROJECT | September 2010 | June 2012 | Allow | 21 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12778916 | BUSINESS ACTIVITY MONITORING ANOMALY DETECTION | May 2010 | July 2012 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11299615 | METHOD, PROGRAM, AND SYSTEM FOR CONDUCTING TRADE STUDIES AND EVALUATION ACTIVITIES | December 2005 | June 2012 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 09947136 | PLANNING AND SCHEDULING MODIFICATION OF A CONFIGURATION | September 2001 | August 2008 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 09942635 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ASSESSING DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ACCURACY | August 2001 | November 2006 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CHOI, PETER H.
With a 33.3% 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, 33.3% 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 CHOI, PETER H works in Art Unit 3681 and has examined 17 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 58.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 52 months.
Examiner CHOI, PETER H's allowance rate of 58.8% places them in the 19% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by CHOI, PETER H receive 3.12 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 89% 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 CHOI, PETER H is 52 months. This places the examiner in the 4% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +65.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CHOI, PETER H. This interview benefit is in the 98% 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, 11.8% 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.
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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 93% 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 17.6% of allowed cases (in the 97% 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 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.