USPTO Examiner KANAAN LIZA TONY - Art Unit 3683

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18407756PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE SYSTEMJanuary 2024March 2025Abandon1410NoNo
18385530SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUSES FOR SECURE DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENTS AND AUTHENTICATING DIAGNOSED USERSOctober 2023December 2024Abandon1310NoNo
18332934MEDICAL SYSTEM WITH DOCKING STATION AND MOBILE MACHINEJune 2023March 2025Abandon2120YesNo
17958756SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CREDENTIALING HEALTHCARE PROVIDERSOctober 2022March 2025Abandon3010NoNo
17929757INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAMSeptember 2022June 2025Abandon3320NoNo
17801745BIOMARKER COMPUTING DEVICE AND BIOMARKER COMPUTING METHODAugust 2022January 2025Abandon2910NoNo
17819609SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DIGITAL IMAGING AND COMMUNICATIONS IN MEDICINE FILE PROCESSINGAugust 2022June 2025Abandon3420NoNo
17863476SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CARING FOR PATIENTS BY USING A SMART DIAPERJuly 2022December 2024Abandon2910NoNo
17860086MANAGING SERVER, MANAGING METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR OPERATING BIOMETRIC INFORMATION-BASED ACCESS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMJuly 2022June 2025Abandon3620YesNo
17568291PATIENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMJanuary 2022May 2025Abandon4020NoNo
17608374TRACKING AND VALIDATING TIME OF PORTABLE DIGITAL RECORDING DEVICESNovember 2021May 2025Abandon4320NoNo
17452899OMNICHANNEL THERAPEUTIC PLATFORMOctober 2021October 2024Allow3610YesNo
17424329REHABILITATION SYSTEM AND IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS FOR HIGHER BRAIN DYSFUNCTIONJuly 2021December 2024Allow4121YesNo
17299442Medical Data Management Method, Apparatus, System, and ServerJune 2021February 2025Abandon4420NoNo
17243064SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE MANAGEMENT PROVIDING HISTORICAL DATA-BASED FORECASTING FOR CLINICAL TRIALSApril 2021October 2024Abandon4240NoNo
17125499DYNAMIC EPISODIC NETWORKSDecember 2020October 2024Abandon4610NoNo
17059950DIAGNOSIS SUPPORT SYSTEMNovember 2020November 2024Abandon4730NoNo
16858407MULTI-MODALITY ELECTRONIC INVITE ROUTING SYSTEM AND PROCESS FOR TELEHEALTH LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION SESSIONApril 2020November 2024Abandon5420NoYes
16803800CONNECTIVITY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A TELEHEALTH PLATFORM WITH THIRD-PARTY WEB SERVICESFebruary 2020March 2025Abandon6040NoYes
16422934DIABETES RISK ENGINE AND METHODS THEREOF FOR PREDICTING DIABETES PROGRESSION AND MORTALITYMay 2019February 2025Abandon6060NoNo
16373619System and method for using unique identifying data for precautionary determination to send notifications to a user to reduce potential negative health outcomes related to implantable devices and recall, adverse event dataApril 2019November 2024Abandon6020NoYes
16010215GEOGRAPHIC UTILIZATION OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN REAL-TIME FOR DISEASE IDENTIFICATION AND ALERT NOTIFICATIONJune 2018January 2025Abandon6080NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KANAAN, LIZA TONY.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
2
Examiner Affirmed
2
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
16.7%
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
3
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
3
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
8.0%
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 KANAAN, LIZA TONY - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner KANAAN, LIZA TONY works in Art Unit 3683 and has examined 21 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 9.5%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 41 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner KANAAN, LIZA TONY's allowance rate of 9.5% places them in the 0% 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 KANAAN, LIZA TONY receive 2.43 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 83% 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 KANAAN, LIZA TONY is 41 months. This places the examiner in the 7% 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 +50.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KANAAN, LIZA TONY. This interview benefit is in the 94% 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, 5.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 1% 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 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 1% percentile among all examiners. 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 97% 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 Cooperation and Flexibility

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.

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.
  • 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.