Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18734060 | COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHODS AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS FOR EVALUATING AT LEAST ONE IMAGE DATA SET OF AN IMAGING REGION OF A PATIENT, COMPUTER PROGRAMS AND ELECTRONICALLY READABLE STORAGE MEDIUMS | June 2024 | March 2025 | Allow | 9 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18354830 | INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | July 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18346717 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR EARLY DETECTION OF COVID-19 | July 2023 | April 2025 | Allow | 22 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18213965 | MEDICAL DEVICE MANAGEMENT METHOD AND RELATED DEVICE | June 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 24 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18037976 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ASSESSING SURGICAL ABILITY | May 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18143260 | MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION OF DATA FOR DIGITAL THERAPEUTICS TRIALS | May 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18310816 | MEDICAL RECORD GENERATION PLATFORM | May 2023 | June 2025 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18032617 | RAPID AND DIRECT IDENTIFICATION AND DETERMINATION OF URINE BACTERIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ANTIBIOTICS | April 2023 | June 2025 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18089863 | Mental Health Anomaly Detection and Guidance | December 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18069917 | Selection Of A Wearable Article For A Medical Device | December 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17923958 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TESTING FOR SARS-COV-2/COVID-19 BASED ON WEARABLE MEDICAL SENSORS AND NEURAL NETWORKS | November 2022 | April 2025 | Allow | 29 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17818239 | CODE GENERATOR FOR CLINICAL RESEARCH STUDY SYSTEMS | August 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17794680 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DATA-DRIVEN INDIVIDUALIZED NUTRITION | July 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner EZEWOKO, MICHAEL I works in Art Unit 3681 and has examined 12 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 83.3%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 26 months.
Examiner EZEWOKO, MICHAEL I's allowance rate of 83.3% places them in the 51% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by EZEWOKO, MICHAEL I receive 1.08 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 15% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by EZEWOKO, MICHAEL I is 26 months. This places the examiner in the 64% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +50.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by EZEWOKO, MICHAEL I. This interview benefit is in the 94% 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, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 98% 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.
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'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.
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.