USPTO Examiner MONTICELLO WILLIAM THOMAS - Art Unit 3681

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18629221INTELLIGENT MEDICAL MONITORING OF A PATIENTApril 2024February 2025Abandon1110NoNo
18244405METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR CALCULATING HEALTH CARE TREATMENT STATISTICSSeptember 2023November 2024Abandon1410NoNo
18344117DEEP LEARNING ARCHITECTURE FOR ANALYZING UNSTRUCTURED DATAJune 2023October 2024Abandon1610NoNo
18066668SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR DISPLAYING MEDICAL INFORMATIONDecember 2022April 2025Abandon2810NoNo
18074283TECHNIQUES FOR PREDICTING IMMUNOSUPPRESSION STATUSDecember 2022April 2025Abandon2910NoNo
17960499GENERATION OF REAL-TIME TRIGGER-BASED DIGITAL FEEDOctober 2022December 2024Abandon2610YesNo
17930579METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MONITORING EFFECTS OF HEALTH AND LIFESTYLE INTERVENTIONSeptember 2022March 2025Abandon3010NoNo
17897108SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING AND COMMUNICATING LEVELS OF BILIRUBIN AND OTHER SUBCUTANEOUS SUBSTANCESAugust 2022September 2024Allow2540YesNo
17857847Candidate Screening for a Target TherapyJuly 2022January 2025Allow3110YesNo
17854583COMPUTER-BASED SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING PSYCHOLOGICAL THERAPYJune 2022October 2024Abandon2810NoNo
17848711SYSTEM AND APPARATUS FOR SMART INVENTORY MANAGEMENTJune 2022January 2025Abandon3030NoNo
17772135EXERCISE SUPPORT DEVICE, EXERCISE SUPPORT SYSTEM, EXERCISE SUPPORT METHOD, AND PROGRAMApril 2022December 2024Abandon3110NoNo
17590384MENTAL HEALTH RISK DETECTION USING GLUCOMETER DATAFebruary 2022December 2024Abandon3410NoNo
17629335AUTOMATED SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING BLOOD SUGAR LEVELSJanuary 2022October 2024Abandon3320NoNo
17532857SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE IN RADIATION THERAPY WITH COLLIMATOR TRAJECTORY DATANovember 2021May 2025Abandon4220NoNo
15528351METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ESTABLISHING NETWORK CONNECTION TO A WEARABLE EEG MONITORING MODULEMay 2017January 2024Abandon6060NoYes
15268845HEALTH ASSESSMENT BY REMOTE PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONSeptember 2016January 2020Allow4010NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MONTICELLO, WILLIAM THOMAS.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
2
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
7.8%
Lower than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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, 0.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is less effective here than in most other areas.

Strategic Recommendations

Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner MONTICELLO, WILLIAM THOMAS - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner MONTICELLO, WILLIAM THOMAS works in Art Unit 3681 and has examined 16 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 18.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 30 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner MONTICELLO, WILLIAM THOMAS's allowance rate of 18.8% places them in the 1% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by MONTICELLO, WILLIAM THOMAS receive 1.75 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 52% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by MONTICELLO, WILLIAM THOMAS is 30 months. This places the examiner in the 43% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +59.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MONTICELLO, WILLIAM THOMAS. This interview benefit is in the 97% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 10.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 2% 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.

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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 18% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 133.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 99% 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 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:

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.
  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.
  • 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.

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.