USPTO Examiner ERICKSON BENNETT S - Art Unit 3683

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18957782METHOD AND SYSTEMS FOR GENERATING AN ENTITY DURATION VALUE WITHIN A GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACENovember 2024October 2025Allow1130YesNo
18674971SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DEVICE CONTROLMay 2024February 2026Allow2110NoNo
18674222Care Provider Coverage Filter for Communication DevicesMay 2024February 2026Allow2110NoNo
18444278TELEMEDICINE PLATFORM INCLUDING VIRTUAL ASSISTANCEFebruary 2024April 2025Allow1410NoNo
18429058Determining A Cardiovascular Ischemic Event And Decision Support ToolJanuary 2024October 2024Allow910NoNo
18520063Salubrity Retention System Using Selective Digital CommunicationsNovember 2023March 2025Abandon1610NoNo
18339726METHODS FOR EVALUATING THE EFFECT OF THE START DATE FOR CANCER TREATMENT WITH A CANCER MEDICATION USING PROPENSITY SCORINGJune 2023July 2025Allow2540YesNo
18337373Systems, Methods and Apparatus of a Virtual Medical MasterclassJune 2023January 2025Abandon1940NoNo
18332798DIGITAL MEDICAL IMAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH SYSTEMJune 2023September 2025Abandon2810NoNo
18032297CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE RISK ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS AND USES THEREOFApril 2023December 2025Abandon3220NoNo
18031166PATIENT MONITORING SYSTEMApril 2023January 2026Abandon3330NoNo
18246892A Neural Graph Model for Automated Clinical Assessment GenerationMarch 2023January 2026Abandon3420NoNo
18157289AI-BASED APPLICATION TO PREDICT APPOINTMENT ADHERENCE IN PEDIATRIC SETTINGSJanuary 2023May 2025Abandon2810NoNo
18146735APPARATUS, METHOD AND COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM FOR PREDICTING BLOOD PRESSURE NON-COMPRESSIVELY USING CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORK AND LONG-SHORT-TERM MEMORY NETWORKDecember 2022January 2026Abandon3620NoNo
18007541METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SEARCHING AN ECG DATABASEDecember 2022April 2025Abandon2910NoNo
17991079METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND DEVICES FOR DETERMINING MUTLI-PARTY COLOCATIONNovember 2022March 2025Allow2810YesNo
17924102METHOD FOR CONTROLLED AND TRUST-AWARE CONTACT TRACING WITH ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT OF CONTACT ACTORSNovember 2022December 2025Abandon3720NoNo
17997584DATA PROVENANCE, LOCALIZATION, AND ANALYSIS FOR PERSONAL DATA COLLECTED IN A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE NETWORKOctober 2022April 2025Abandon2910NoNo
18048460ROBOT CONTROL METHOD AND INFORMATION PROVIDING METHODOctober 2022February 2025Abandon2830YesNo
17939921System and Method for More Accurate Estimation of Vaccine Efficacy by Taking Into Account the Rate of Herd ImmunitySeptember 2022December 2025Abandon3920NoYes
17904407SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING FERTILITY ENHANCING DIETARY RECOMMENDATIONS IN INDIVIDUALS WITH ENDOMETRIOSISAugust 2022January 2025Abandon2910YesNo
17812822PLANNING SYSTEM BASED ON RISKS OF SURGICAL ERRORJuly 2022July 2025Abandon3620NoNo
17791219A REMOTE MEDICAL EXAMINATION SYSTEM AND METHODJuly 2022January 2025Abandon3110NoNo
17704492Systems and Methods for Prediction and Estimation of Medical Claims PaymentsMarch 2022March 2026Allow4740YesNo
17639939A COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ALERTING AN EXPECTANT MOTHER TO A MEDICAL RISK DURING PREGNANCYMarch 2022March 2026Abandon4820YesYes
17573259CLINICAL DRUG TRIAL DATA ENRICHING USING ACTIVITY AND BEHAVIORAL ANALYTICS CAPTURED WITH PERSONAL DEVICES AND APPSJanuary 2022October 2025Abandon4610NoNo
17449229INCORPORATING CLINICAL AND ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES FOR MEDICAL AI DEPLOYMENT IN CLINICAL DECISION MAKINGSeptember 2021January 2026Allow5250YesNo
17484320SYSTEM FOR PATIENT REGISTRATION, CHECK-IN, AND SERVICESeptember 2021December 2024Allow3820YesNo
17384508HUB IDENTIFICATION AND TRACKING OF OBJECTS AND PERSONNEL WITHIN THE OR TO OVERLAY DATA THAT IS CUSTOM TO THE USER'S NEEDJuly 2021May 2025Abandon4540NoNo
17424564METHOD FOR DETERMINING A MODEL OF AN EXTREMITY, COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM AND SYSTEMJuly 2021January 2025Allow4230YesNo
17424315MEDICAL IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM AND METHODJuly 2021March 2026Allow5650NoNo
17422352STABILITY ESTIMATION OF A POINT SET REGISTRATIONJuly 2021October 2025Allow5150YesNo
17421513CARE RECORDING DEVICE, CARE RECORDING SYSTEM, CARE RECORDING PROGRAM, AND CARE RECORDING METHODJuly 2021May 2025Abandon4640NoNo
17416376ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PROCESSING SYSTEM AND AUTOMATED PRE-DIAGNOSTIC WORKFLOW FOR DIGITAL PATHOLOGYJune 2021August 2025Abandon5040YesNo
17335420AGGREGATED NETWORK OF SURGICAL HUBS FOR EFFICIENCY ANALYSISJune 2021January 2026Allow5550YesNo
17330813System and Method for Virtual Verification in Pharmacy WorkflowMay 2021September 2025Allow5250YesNo
17279915AUTOMATIC SETTING OF IMAGING PARAMETERSMarch 2021November 2025Allow5650YesNo
17264856AN OPERATING ROOM CONTROL SYSTEM, METHOD, AND PROGRAMFebruary 2021May 2025Abandon5140YesNo
17148376SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AN ADAPTIVE INTERFACE FOR AN ULTRASOUND IMAGING SYSTEMJanuary 2021July 2024Allow4230YesNo
17132463MEDICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, MEDICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND MEDICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING METHODDecember 2020May 2025Abandon5250NoNo
17053975GENERATING A 3D-PRINTED MEDICAL APPLIANCE TREATMENT PLAN AND PROVIDING 3D-PRINTED MEDICAL APPLIANCES IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITHNovember 2020March 2025Allow5220YesYes
17062519RECONFIGURATION OF DISPLAY SHARINGOctober 2020November 2025Abandon6060NoNo
16980386INTELLIGENT SCHEDULER FOR CENTRALIZED CONTROL OF IMAGING EXAMINATIONSSeptember 2020June 2025Abandon5740NoYes
16923297SIMULATION-ENHANCED INTRAOPERATIVE SURGICAL PLANNING TOOL FOR ROBOTICS-ASSISTED TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTYJuly 2020June 2024Allow4740YesNo
16756588FUNCTIONAL BIOMARKERS FOR STATIN THERAPY IN AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION (AMD)April 2020March 2026Allow6070YesNo
16777792CLINICAL TRIAL OVERSIGHT AND IDENTIFICATION OF ERRORS IN CLINICAL TRIAL PROCEDUREJanuary 2020November 2024Abandon5720YesYes
16237659MULTI-FACTOR CONTROL SYSTEM FOR OPHTHALMIC REFRACTION MODIFICATIONDecember 2018September 2025Abandon6060NoNo
16145461METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR RADIOTHERAPY TREATMENT PLANNING USING DEEP LEARNING ENGINESSeptember 2018June 2024Allow6050YesYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ERICKSON, BENNETT S.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
2
Examiner Affirmed
2
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
17.7%
Lower than average

What This Means

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.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
4
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
4
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
9.8%
Lower than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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.

Strategic Recommendations

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 - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner ERICKSON, BENNETT S works in Art Unit 3683 and has examined 22 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 59.1%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 52 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner ERICKSON, BENNETT S's allowance rate of 59.1% places them in the 19% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by ERICKSON, BENNETT S receive 4.32 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 98% 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by ERICKSON, BENNETT S is 52 months. This places the examiner in the 4% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +65.7% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 20.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 21% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

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 76% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 20% 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.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.
  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • Request pre-appeal conferences: PACs are highly effective with this examiner. Before filing a full appeal brief, request a PAC to potentially resolve issues without full PTAB review.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.