Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17247928 | PATIENT SCHEDULING USING PREDICTIVE ANALYTICS | December 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14958684 | System and Method for Remote Tele-Health Services | December 2015 | March 2019 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14763027 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORT | July 2015 | January 2020 | Allow | 54 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14323112 | MODULE AND SYSTEM FOR MEDICAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT | July 2014 | August 2019 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 14285343 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EXTRACTING SPECIFIED DATA FROM NARRATIVE TEXT | May 2014 | January 2019 | Allow | 56 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14043558 | FACILITATING PASSENGER TO MANAGE AIRLINE RESERVATION WITHIN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE | October 2013 | February 2018 | Allow | 52 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13886625 | METHOD OF DELIVERING GOODS AND SERVICES VIA MEDIA | May 2013 | September 2013 | Allow | 5 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13806943 | IMAGING DEVICE INFORMATION SYSTEM AND METHOD | March 2013 | February 2014 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13436239 | PATIENT COHORT MATCHING | March 2012 | April 2014 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13200907 | Treatment system and method for ingestible product dispensing system and method | October 2011 | January 2018 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13200906 | TREATMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INGESTIBLE PRODUCT DISPENSING SYSTEM AND METHOD | October 2011 | December 2017 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12462793 | SYSTEM FOR INTELLIGENT MEDICAL DEVICE NETWORK | August 2009 | September 2013 | Allow | 49 | 1 | 0 | Yes | 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 GO, JOHN PHILIP works in Art Unit 3681 and has examined 12 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 91.7%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 54 months.
Examiner GO, JOHN PHILIP's allowance rate of 91.7% places them in the 77% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by GO, JOHN PHILIP receive 2.92 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 81% 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 GO, JOHN PHILIP is 54 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 -9.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by GO, JOHN PHILIP. This interview benefit is in the 4% 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, 21.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 28% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
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 4% 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 file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 6% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 38% 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 44% 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.