Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19013276 | METHOD OF GENERATING PERSONALIZED LEARNING PATH BASED ON MULTI-COURSE KNOWLEDGE GRAPH MERGING AND SYSTEM THEREOF | January 2025 | February 2026 | Abandon | 13 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18381225 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COMPETENCY-BASED TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION | October 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17998750 | Adjusted Polygenic Risk Score Calculation Algorithm and Process | November 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 39 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17848711 | SYSTEM AND APPARATUS FOR SMART INVENTORY MANAGEMENT | June 2022 | January 2025 | Abandon | 30 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17550478 | METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR RECOMMENDING TAILORED WELLNESS ACTIVITIES BASED UPON NON-WELLNESS-RELATED DATA | December 2021 | February 2026 | Abandon | 50 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17492163 | WORKFLOW FOR AUTOMATIC MEASUREMENT OF DOPPLER PIPELINE | October 2021 | November 2025 | Allow | 50 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15528351 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ESTABLISHING NETWORK CONNECTION TO A WEARABLE EEG MONITORING MODULE | May 2017 | January 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MONTICELLO, WILLIAM THOMAS.
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.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner MONTICELLO, WILLIAM THOMAS works in Art Unit 3682 and has examined 3 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 33.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 50 months.
Examiner MONTICELLO, WILLIAM THOMAS's allowance rate of 33.3% places them in the 5% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by MONTICELLO, WILLIAM THOMAS receive 5.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 99% 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 MONTICELLO, WILLIAM THOMAS is 50 months. This places the examiner in the 6% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +100.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MONTICELLO, WILLIAM THOMAS. This interview benefit is in the 100% 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, 8.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 4% 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 3% 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, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 19% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 100% 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 40% 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 43% 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.