Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18656535 | DISTRIBUTED LEDGER FOR MEDICAMENT ADMINISTRATION TRACKING | May 2024 | December 2024 | Allow | 7 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18648292 | METHOD AND AN APPARATUS FOR DETECTING A LEVEL OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE | April 2024 | April 2025 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18386719 | Movement disorder therapy systems, devices and methods of remotely tuning | November 2023 | December 2024 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18368050 | Movement disorder therapy system, devices and methods of remotely tuning | September 2023 | September 2024 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18244742 | Method and Apparatus for Managing Physician Referrals | September 2023 | April 2025 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18313726 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVING DISEASE DIAGNOSIS | May 2023 | April 2025 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18030602 | HAPLOTYPE-BLOCK-BASED IMPUTATION OF GENOMIC MARKERS | April 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18055358 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DATA ANALYTICS AND VISUALIZATION | November 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17954155 | CLINICAL WORKFLOWS UTILIZING AUTONOMOUS AND SEMI-AUTONOMOUS TELEMEDICINE DEVICES | September 2022 | January 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17880278 | Distributed Systems for Secure Storage and Retrieval of Encrypted Biological Specimen Data | August 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17747425 | Method and system for quantifying movement disorder symptoms | May 2022 | August 2024 | Allow | 27 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17329744 | System and Method for Improving Health Care Management and Compliance | May 2021 | October 2024 | Abandon | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17210839 | SURGICAL NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS FROM REAL TIME ANALYSIS OF PROCEDURE VARIABLES AGAINST A BASELINE HIGHLIGHTING DIFFERENCES FROM THE OPTIMAL SOLUTION | March 2021 | November 2024 | Allow | 43 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17138777 | OPERATING DEVICES IN AN OPERATING ROOM | December 2020 | February 2025 | Allow | 50 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17075654 | AUDITING THE CODING AND ABSTRACTING OF DOCUMENTS | October 2020 | June 2024 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16962113 | LEARNING METHOD AND INFORMATION PROVIDING SYSTEM | July 2020 | February 2025 | Abandon | 55 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16692908 | CLINICIAN STATION FOR PROVIDING MEDICAL SERVICES REMOTELY | November 2019 | February 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16616036 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ESTABLISHING A BODY REGION STATE | November 2019 | October 2024 | Abandon | 59 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16275741 | MEDICAL SERVICES METHOD AND SYSTEM | February 2019 | August 2024 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16173242 | CLOSED-LOOP RADIOLOGICAL FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM | October 2018 | July 2024 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15719382 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR POPULATION HEALTH MANAGEMENT IN A CAPTIVATED HEALTHCARE SYSTEM | September 2017 | October 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14872115 | FACILITATING ACCESS TO PATIENT MEDICAL INFORMATION | September 2015 | December 2018 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14728222 | METHOD FOR MANAGING AN ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD AND AN EMR MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | June 2015 | January 2019 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14617708 | MULTI-FACTOR BRAIN ANALYSIS VIA MEDICAL IMAGING DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS AND METHODS | February 2015 | April 2017 | Allow | 26 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14546634 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONDUCTING REAL TIME ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE OF DISEASE OUTBREAK | November 2014 | September 2018 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14231701 | METHOD OF SCANNING CODES AND PROCESSING DATA WITH HANDHELD SCANNING JACKET | March 2014 | February 2018 | Allow | 46 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14083408 | AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION MOBILE POST OFFICE SYSTEM | November 2013 | May 2017 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13839645 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE STATES OF HEALTH USING PERSONALIZED 3-D ANATOMICAL MODELS | March 2013 | March 2018 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13234623 | METHOD FOR COLLECTING, PROCESSING, AND STORING DISCRETE DATA RECORDS BASED UPON A SINGLE DATA INPUT | September 2011 | July 2019 | Allow | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13108987 | METHOD OF DISPENSING A PRODUCT | May 2011 | June 2012 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12966290 | MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION FLOW AND WORKFLOW IN MEDICAL PROCEDURES | December 2010 | April 2012 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12717261 | Method of Eliminating Effect of Afterglow on Radiation Image Read Out of Photostimulable Phosphor Screen | March 2010 | February 2013 | Allow | 35 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12711095 | METHOD OF DISPENSING A PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT | February 2010 | February 2011 | Allow | 12 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12700028 | EXTRACTING PATIENT MOTION VECTORS FROM MARKER POSITIONS IN X-RAY IMAGES | February 2010 | August 2014 | Allow | 54 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12634260 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IN VITRO ANALYSIS OF THE PHYSICAL RESPONSE OF BLOOD-VESSELS TO VASO-ACTIVE AGENTS | December 2009 | June 2014 | Allow | 54 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12626310 | METHOD FOR TRACKING X-RAY MARKERS IN SERIAL CT PROJECTION IMAGES | November 2009 | January 2015 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12587603 | METHODS FOR TISSUE CLASSIFICATION IN CERVICAL IMAGERY | October 2009 | February 2013 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12565896 | CREATION OF MOTION COMPENSATED MRI M-MODE IMAGES OF THE MYOCARDIAL WALL | September 2009 | September 2012 | Allow | 36 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12505206 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COLLECTING, PROCESSING, AND STORING DISCRETE DATA RECORDS BASED UPON A SINGLE DATA INPUT | July 2009 | June 2011 | Abandon | 23 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12377452 | ROUTE GUIDANCE SYSTEM AND PROGRAM | February 2009 | April 2012 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12257900 | CONFIGURABLE VEHICULAR TIME TO STOP WARNING SYSTEM | October 2008 | November 2011 | Allow | 36 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12237790 | CURRENT POSITION INFORMATION REPORTING SYSTEM, INFORMATION CENTER APPARATUS, AND METHOD THEREOF | September 2008 | December 2011 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12168880 | BROADCAST RECEIVER AND METHOD OF PROCESSING DATA | July 2008 | May 2012 | Allow | 46 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11943844 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING A TEACHING FILE MESSAGE | November 2007 | July 2013 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11933098 | DISEASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD | October 2007 | March 2010 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11863271 | METHOD OF DISPENSING A PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT | September 2007 | October 2009 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11383662 | BROADCASTING MEDICAL IMAGE OBJECTS WITH DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | May 2006 | May 2011 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11356739 | MEDICAL MONITORING AND COORDINATED CARE SYSTEM | February 2006 | December 2011 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10440465 | EVIDENCE-BASED CHECKLIST FLOW AND TRACKING SYSTEM FOR PATIENT CARE BY MEDICAL PROVIDERS | May 2003 | February 2010 | Allow | 60 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10435588 | MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION FLOW AND WORKFLOW IN MEDICAL IMAGING SERVICES | May 2003 | August 2010 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 09851745 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ELECTRONIC MEDICAL FILE MANAGEMENT | May 2001 | September 2010 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SOREY, ROBERT A.
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 SOREY, ROBERT A works in Art Unit 3682 and has examined 49 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 83.7%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.
Examiner SOREY, ROBERT A's allowance rate of 83.7% places them in the 52% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by SOREY, ROBERT A receive 2.37 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 81% 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 SOREY, ROBERT A is 42 months. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +29.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SOREY, ROBERT A. This interview benefit is in the 81% 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, 26.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 34% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 20.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 17% 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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 98% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 33.3% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 18.2% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 10% 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 10.2% of allowed cases (in the 96% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
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.
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.