Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18585295 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROCESSING ELECTRONIC IMAGES ACROSS REGIONS | February 2024 | September 2024 | Allow | 7 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18025460 | SUPERVISORY DATA GENERATION APPARATUS | March 2023 | June 2025 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18111553 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING TELEHEALTH SERVICES USING TOUCHLESS VITALS AND AI-OPTIMIZED ASSESSMENT IN REAL-TIME | February 2023 | April 2025 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18041210 | MOVEMENT CODE-BASED EMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS SYSTEM | February 2023 | May 2025 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18104333 | AUTOMATED PERSONALIZED NUTRITION AND LIFESTYLE RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM AND ASSOCIATED METHOD THEREOF | February 2023 | June 2025 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18015873 | INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | January 2023 | May 2025 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18046710 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MEDICAL RESOURCE INTELLIGENCE | October 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 31 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17941241 | Method and System for Delivering Intervention Based on User Status | September 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17751717 | PATIENT DOCTOR INTERACTION SYSTEM, MEDICAL QUICK RESPONSE CODE SYSTEM, DOCTOR PATIENT DIAGNOSIS SHARING INFORMATION SYSTEM, DOCTOR PATIENT COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, PROCESS, AND METHOD OF USE | May 2022 | October 2024 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17622673 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATED DETECTION OF CLINICAL OUTCOME MEASURES | December 2021 | October 2024 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17645892 | ONLINE MONITORING OF CLINICAL DATA DRIFTS | December 2021 | October 2024 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17643181 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | December 2021 | October 2024 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17540308 | TECHNOLOGIES FOR MANAGING CAREGIVER CALL REQUESTS VIA SHORT MESSAGE SERVICE | December 2021 | March 2025 | Allow | 39 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17535996 | AIR Oracle Brain | November 2021 | April 2025 | Abandon | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17390597 | RESOURCE TRACKING AND ALLOCATION | July 2021 | April 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17374397 | METHOD FOR PROVIDING SERVICE FOR INFERTILITY AND A SERVER PERFORMING THE METHOD | July 2021 | December 2024 | Abandon | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17315797 | SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND SOFTWARE FOR ACCESSING AND DISPLAYING DATA FROM IMPLANTED MEDICAL DEVICES | May 2021 | February 2025 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16760631 | POPULATION-BASED MEDICATION RISK STRATIFICATION AND PERSONALIZED MEDICATION RISK SCORE | April 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 51 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 14907901 | Method for Controlling One-Touch Call Mode of Mobile Terminal | March 2016 | January 2019 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14341960 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | July 2014 | June 2017 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13627196 | Electronic Calendar | September 2012 | February 2015 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12976595 | RELATIVE ITEM OF INTEREST EXPLORER INTERFACE | December 2010 | December 2013 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12861055 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PERFORMING CALCULATIONS USING A PORTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE | August 2010 | December 2012 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12758498 | USER INTERFACE MANIPULATION FOR COHERENT CONTENT PRESENTATION | April 2010 | October 2013 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12726293 | METHOD FOR CONTROLLING ICON DISPLAY IN MOBILE TERMINAL AND MOBILE TERMINAL THEREOF | March 2010 | December 2013 | Allow | 45 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12686493 | STORAGE SECTION CONTROLLING APPARATUS, STORAGE SECTION CONTROLLING SYSTEM AND COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM ON OR IN WHICH STORAGE SECTION CONTROLLING PROGRAM IS RECORDED | January 2010 | January 2014 | Allow | 48 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12528816 | MEMORY SYSTEM WITH A MEMORY CONTROLLER CONTROLLING PARALLELISM OF DRIVING MEMORIES | August 2009 | October 2012 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12510510 | INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | July 2009 | November 2013 | Allow | 51 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12272124 | STORAGE DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD FOR MANAGING RESOURCES OF A STORAGE SYSTEM | November 2008 | April 2013 | Allow | 53 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12270249 | SPIRAL CACHE POWER MANAGEMENT, ADAPTIVE SIZING AND INTERFACE OPERATIONS | November 2008 | May 2012 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12298263 | STORAGE SYSTEM HAVING FUNCTION OF PERFORMING FORMATTING OR SHREDDING | October 2008 | June 2013 | Allow | 56 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12207168 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AN ACTIVE LOW POWER MODE OF A PORTABLE COMPUTING DEVICE | September 2008 | December 2013 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12230930 | APPARATUS, PROCESSOR AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING CACHE MEMORY | September 2008 | December 2012 | Allow | 51 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner HIGGS, STELLA EUN.
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, 100.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner HIGGS, STELLA EUN works in Art Unit 3681 and has examined 32 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 62.5%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 39 months.
Examiner HIGGS, STELLA EUN's allowance rate of 62.5% places them in the 16% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by HIGGS, STELLA EUN receive 1.78 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 54% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by HIGGS, STELLA EUN is 39 months. This places the examiner in the 10% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +15.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HIGGS, STELLA EUN. This interview benefit is in the 60% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 39.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 88% 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 22.2% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 21% 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, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 98% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 98% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 50.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 85% 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 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.