Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16953183 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR MANAGING DISTRIBUTION AND TREATMENT OF A FOOD ALLERGY ORAL IMMUNOTHERAPY DRUG | November 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17025129 | HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WITH MULTIDIMENSIONAL PERFORMANCE REPRESENTATION | September 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 51 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16985609 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PROVIDING IMPROVED MECHANISM FOR UPDATING HEALTHCARE INFORMATION SYSTEMS | August 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 47 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16926863 | DIGITAL TWIN MANAGER | July 2020 | February 2025 | Allow | 55 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16663656 | MAINTENANCE NOTIFICATION FOR MEDICAL DEVICES | October 2019 | April 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16173027 | Apparatus and Method for Care Plan Generation | October 2018 | April 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14218542 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COMMUNICATING WITH A DIALYSIS MACHINE THROUGH A NETWORK | March 2014 | August 2018 | Allow | 53 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13736340 | PREPAID CARD FOR SERVICES RELATED TO PERSONAL HEALTH RECORDS | January 2013 | April 2017 | Allow | 52 | 7 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13705327 | EVIDENCE-BASED HEALTHCARE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS | December 2012 | July 2019 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12675979 | PRECLINICAL TIME OF FLIGHT IMAGING | March 2010 | January 2016 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12710423 | METHOD FOR THE NOISE REDUCTION OF CT IMAGE DATA AND IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEM | February 2010 | September 2013 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11577681 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ASSESSING DATA QUALITY DURING CLINICAL TRIALS | December 2007 | September 2013 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11678266 | SELF-DESCRIBING DATA FRAMEWORK | February 2007 | August 2013 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11522493 | Treatment limiter | September 2006 | June 2015 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10756010 | METHOD FOR GENERATING MEDICAL INTELLIGENCE FROM PATIENT-SPECIFIC DATA | January 2004 | December 2010 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10045649 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ARRANGING SHIPMENT AND INSURANCE FOR AN ITEM | November 2001 | March 2017 | Allow | 60 | 16 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner RAPILLO, KRISTINE K.
With a 50.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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, 60.0% 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.
✓ Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner RAPILLO, KRISTINE K works in Art Unit 3682 and has examined 16 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 75.0%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 10000 months.
Examiner RAPILLO, KRISTINE K's allowance rate of 75.0% places them in the 42% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by RAPILLO, KRISTINE K receive 5.75 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 RAPILLO, KRISTINE K 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 +10.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by RAPILLO, KRISTINE K. This interview benefit is in the 43% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 5.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 3% 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 33.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 52% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 52% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner shows above-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. The mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) provides an opportunity for reconsideration.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 14.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 8% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.
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.