USPTO Examiner MOSELEY GREGORY D - Art Unit 3681

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18891499SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR METABOLIC OUTCOME PREDICTIONSSeptember 2024March 2025Allow510YesNo
18407393SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MACHINE LEARNING-BASED PREDICTIVE MATCHINGJanuary 2024February 2025Abandon1410NoNo
18472036INTEGRATED DIAGNOSTIC TEST REQUISITION AND CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORTSeptember 2023December 2024Abandon1510NoNo
18207299METHOD FOR DIAGNOSIS AND DOCUMENTATION OF HEALTHCARE INFORMATIONJune 2023April 2025Allow2210YesNo
18178513Methods and systems for connecting subjects to healthcare providersMarch 2023March 2025Abandon2510NoNo
18063834SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MEDICAL INFORMATION DATA WAREHOUSE MANAGEMENTDecember 2022September 2024Allow2200YesNo
18077918PERSONAL AND REUSABLE INFECTION STATUS PASSPORT DEVICE THAT IS CONFIGURED TO TEST FOR COVID-19 AND INFECTIOUS DISEASEDecember 2022March 2025Allow2840NoNo
18073064AN APPARATUS FOR ENHANCING LONGEVITY AND METHOD FOR ITS USEDecember 2022August 2024Abandon2050YesNo
17917056PARENT-AND-CHILD HEALTH STUDY ASSISTANCE SYSTEM, PARENT-AND-CHILD HEALTH STUDY ASSISTANCE APPARATUS, AND DATA PROCESSING METHODOctober 2022March 2025Abandon2920NoNo
17812728INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAMJuly 2022March 2025Abandon3220NoNo
17532227Systems and Methods for Identifying Content Based on User InteractionsNovember 2021April 2025Abandon4040YesNo
17511721METHOD FOR GENERATING A DIAGNOSIS MODEL USING BIOMARKER GROUP-RELATED VALUE INFORMATION, AND METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DIAGNOSING MULTI-CANCER USING THE SAMEOctober 2021November 2024Abandon3750YesNo
17405750SYSTEMS FOR MONITORING ROOMS IN A MEDICAL FACILITYAugust 2021June 2025Abandon4630YesNo
17309975SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING DEEP LEARNING TO GENERATE ACUITY SCORES FOR CRITICALLY ILL OR INJURED PATIENTSJuly 2021March 2025Allow4480YesNo
17101867MEDICATION MANAGEMENT DEVICE, MEDICATION MANAGEMENT METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING MEDICATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAMNovember 2020November 2024Abandon4830YesNo
17024557INFUSION SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PATIENT PREDICTIONS USING ASSOCIATION MININGSeptember 2020April 2025Abandon5560YesNo
17009094METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SECURE DATA ANALYSIS AND MACHINE LEARNINGSeptember 2020June 2025Allow5750YesNo
16900812MACHINE LEARNING TECHNIQUES FOR UPDATING MEDICAL DECISIONS BASED ON EVENT DATA FROM FIELD DEVICESJune 2020November 2024Abandon5450NoNo
16893139SYSTEM FACILITATING HEALTHCARE SERVICES AND A METHOD THEREOFJune 2020March 2025Abandon5740NoNo
16881317SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PATIENT-TRIAL MATCHINGMay 2020September 2024Allow5240YesNo
16864887ELDERLY MORTALITY AFTER TRAUMA PREDICTION SYSTEM WITH MULTI-STAGE MODELLING AND REPORTINGMay 2020January 2025Abandon5740NoNo
16693540PRECISION COHORT ANALYTICS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH MANAGEMENTNovember 2019May 2025Abandon6040YesYes
16531291GENERATING HIGH CONFIDENCE REFILLS FOR UNIFIED WORKFORCE MANAGEMENTAugust 2019March 2025Abandon6040YesYes
16377011Patient Care SystemApril 2019December 2024Abandon6070NoNo
16332953A SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USE IN ASSISTING A USER TO FOCUS ON PERFORMING A PERSONAL CARE ACTIVITYMarch 2019June 2024Allow6060YesNo
16155758PLATFORM AND SYSTEM FOR DIGITAL PERSONALIZED MEDICINEOctober 2018December 2024Abandon6070YesNo
15423533SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING INTERACTIVE PHARMACY SERVICESFebruary 2017February 2025Abandon6070YesYes
14730144COMPUTATIONAL MEDICAL TREATMENT PLAN METHOD AND SYSTEM WITH MASS MEDICAL ANALYSISJune 2015December 2021Abandon6070YesYes
14657790MEDICAL DEVICE WITH NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSORMarch 2015September 2024Allow60121YesNo
14604425SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FACILITATING PHYSIOLOGICAL DATA COLLECTION PRIOR TO APPOINTMENTJanuary 2015January 2020Allow6030NoNo
14556326MANAGING COMPANIONSHIP DATADecember 2014January 2019Allow4930YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MOSELEY, GREGORY D.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
4
Examiner Affirmed
4
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
16.5%
Lower than average

What This Means

With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
4
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
4
(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

Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.

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

Examiner MOSELEY, GREGORY D - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner MOSELEY, GREGORY D works in Art Unit 3681 and has examined 29 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 34.5%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 52 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner MOSELEY, GREGORY D's allowance rate of 34.5% places them in the 3% 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 MOSELEY, GREGORY D receive 4.38 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 100% 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by MOSELEY, GREGORY D is 52 months. This places the examiner in the 0% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +22.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MOSELEY, GREGORY D. This interview benefit is in the 71% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 8.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 1% 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 1% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 80.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 92% 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.
  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • 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.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

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.