Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18444278 | TELEMEDICINE PLATFORM INCLUDING VIRTUAL ASSISTANCE | February 2024 | April 2025 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18429058 | Determining A Cardiovascular Ischemic Event And Decision Support Tool | January 2024 | October 2024 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18520063 | Salubrity Retention System Using Selective Digital Communications | November 2023 | March 2025 | Abandon | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18337373 | Systems, Methods and Apparatus of a Virtual Medical Masterclass | June 2023 | January 2025 | Abandon | 19 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 18157289 | AI-BASED APPLICATION TO PREDICT APPOINTMENT ADHERENCE IN PEDIATRIC SETTINGS | January 2023 | May 2025 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18007541 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SEARCHING AN ECG DATABASE | December 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17991079 | METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND DEVICES FOR DETERMINING MUTLI-PARTY COLOCATION | November 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17997584 | DATA PROVENANCE, LOCALIZATION, AND ANALYSIS FOR PERSONAL DATA COLLECTED IN A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE NETWORK | October 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18048460 | ROBOT CONTROL METHOD AND INFORMATION PROVIDING METHOD | October 2022 | February 2025 | Abandon | 28 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17904407 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING FERTILITY ENHANCING DIETARY RECOMMENDATIONS IN INDIVIDUALS WITH ENDOMETRIOSIS | August 2022 | January 2025 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17791219 | A REMOTE MEDICAL EXAMINATION SYSTEM AND METHOD | July 2022 | January 2025 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17484320 | SYSTEM FOR PATIENT REGISTRATION, CHECK-IN, AND SERVICE | September 2021 | December 2024 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17384508 | HUB IDENTIFICATION AND TRACKING OF OBJECTS AND PERSONNEL WITHIN THE OR TO OVERLAY DATA THAT IS CUSTOM TO THE USER'S NEED | July 2021 | May 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17424564 | METHOD FOR DETERMINING A MODEL OF AN EXTREMITY, COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM AND SYSTEM | July 2021 | January 2025 | Allow | 42 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17421513 | CARE RECORDING DEVICE, CARE RECORDING SYSTEM, CARE RECORDING PROGRAM, AND CARE RECORDING METHOD | July 2021 | May 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17264856 | AN OPERATING ROOM CONTROL SYSTEM, METHOD, AND PROGRAM | February 2021 | May 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17148376 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AN ADAPTIVE INTERFACE FOR AN ULTRASOUND IMAGING SYSTEM | January 2021 | July 2024 | Allow | 42 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17132463 | MEDICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, MEDICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND MEDICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | December 2020 | May 2025 | Abandon | 52 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 17053975 | GENERATING A 3D-PRINTED MEDICAL APPLIANCE TREATMENT PLAN AND PROVIDING 3D-PRINTED MEDICAL APPLIANCES IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH | November 2020 | March 2025 | Allow | 52 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16980386 | INTELLIGENT SCHEDULER FOR CENTRALIZED CONTROL OF IMAGING EXAMINATIONS | September 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 57 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16923297 | SIMULATION-ENHANCED INTRAOPERATIVE SURGICAL PLANNING TOOL FOR ROBOTICS-ASSISTED TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY | July 2020 | June 2024 | Allow | 47 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16777792 | CLINICAL TRIAL OVERSIGHT AND IDENTIFICATION OF ERRORS IN CLINICAL TRIAL PROCEDURE | January 2020 | November 2024 | Abandon | 57 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16145461 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR RADIOTHERAPY TREATMENT PLANNING USING DEEP LEARNING ENGINES | September 2018 | June 2024 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ERICKSON, BENNETT S.
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.
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.
⚠ 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 ERICKSON, BENNETT S works in Art Unit 3683 and has examined 21 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 42 months.
Examiner ERICKSON, BENNETT S's allowance rate of 33.3% places them in the 2% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by ERICKSON, BENNETT S receive 2.67 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 89% 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 ERICKSON, BENNETT S 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 +63.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ERICKSON, BENNETT S. This interview benefit is in the 98% 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, 18.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 11% 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 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.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 100.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 74% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. If you have strong arguments, a PAC request may result in favorable reconsideration.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 15% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 85% 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 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 37% 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.