Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16937441 | LEARNING PLATFORM FOR PATIENT JOURNEY MAPPING | July 2020 | May 2024 | Allow | 45 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16919775 | METHOD FOR PROVIDING PATIENT INDICATIONS TO AN ENTITY | July 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 49 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16911965 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR AN APPARATUS FOR AN EMOTIONAL PATTERN MATCHING SYSTEM | June 2020 | June 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16753693 | BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS | April 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16589031 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SELECTING A TREATMENT SCHEMA BASED ON USER WILLINGNESS | September 2019 | September 2024 | Allow | 59 | 10 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15855137 | Personal Analysis and Chronotherapy | December 2017 | August 2024 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15830303 | FRICTIONLESS PROCESSING TO BYPASS CODE VALIDATION | December 2017 | May 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15830336 | FRICTIONLESS PROCESSING FOR AUTOMATIC ADJUDICATION OF MEDICAL ENCOUNTERS | December 2017 | May 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15830319 | FRICTIONLESS PROCESSING TO BYPASS CLAIM SCRUBBING | December 2017 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15681174 | COORDINATED MOBILE ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS | August 2017 | September 2020 | Abandon | 37 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14922376 | AUTOMATED EXCHANGE OF HEALTHCARE INFORMATION FOR FULFILLMENT OF MEDICATION DOSES | October 2015 | May 2025 | Allow | 60 | 13 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14554553 | Clinical Trial Investigators Performance Assessment | November 2014 | May 2019 | Allow | 54 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14309949 | INTELLIGENT COMPUTER-GUIDED STRUCTURED REPORTING FOR EFFICIENCY AND CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORT | June 2014 | May 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 11 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner NEWTON, CHAD A.
With a 25.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is below the USPTO average, indicating that appeals face more challenges here than typical.
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, 20.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable reconsideration.
⚠ 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 NEWTON, CHAD A works in Art Unit 3681 and has examined 13 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 53.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 10000 months.
Examiner NEWTON, CHAD A's allowance rate of 53.8% 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 NEWTON, CHAD A receive 6.69 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.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by NEWTON, CHAD A is 10000 months. This places the examiner in the 1% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +58.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by NEWTON, CHAD A. This interview benefit is in the 96% 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, 10.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 7% 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.
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.
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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 46% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.
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.