USPTO Examiner CHOI DAVID - Art Unit 3684

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18770828HANDLING OF AGE OF TRANSMITTED DATA IN MEDICAL DEVICE SYSTEMJuly 2024September 2025Allow1400YesNo
18762494SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RESOURCE AVAILABILITY MANAGEMENTJuly 2024November 2025Allow1600YesNo
18595881SYSTEM FOR CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT OF ELECTRONIC DENTAL RECORDSMarch 2024June 2025Abandon1520NoNo
18202718A SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SELF-ASSESSMENT OF DENTAL PROBLEMSMay 2023January 2026Abandon3220NoNo
18036463SYSTEM AND METHOD TO DELIVER EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DIRECTLY TO HEALTH CARE CONSUMERSMay 2023January 2026Abandon3320NoNo
18299051Methods and Systems for Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular DiseaseApril 2023September 2025Abandon2910NoNo
18026879METHOD, DEVICE, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR RECOMMENDING PRODUCT ON BASIS OF STATE OF ANIMALMarch 2023May 2025Abandon2610NoNo
18118001INTEGRATED, MACHINE LEARNING POWERED, MEMBER-CENTRIC SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE (SAAS) ANALYTICSMarch 2023September 2025Abandon3020YesNo
18177199USING A GAN FOR ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD EXTRAPOLATIONMarch 2023December 2025Abandon3420YesNo
18166001MEDICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, MEDICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUMFebruary 2023February 2026Abandon3630NoNo
18163411ADMINISTRATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING SAMEFebruary 2023September 2025Allow3120YesNo
18005196HEADACHE CAUSE DETERMINATION SYSTEM, HEADACHE CAUSE DETERMINATION METHOD, PROGRAM, AND DATA STRUCTUREJanuary 2023February 2025Abandon2510YesNo
18013664METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGING MEDICAL CONSULTATION CONTENTDecember 2022August 2025Abandon3120NoNo
18003356DETERMINING MEDICAL STAFFING FOR ORAL IMMUNOTHERAPYDecember 2022June 2025Abandon2910NoNo
18084340SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING A SURGICAL WORKFLOW TOOLDecember 2022March 2025Abandon2710NoNo
18082745METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR AUTOMATIC AUTHORIZATION USING MACHINE LEARNING ALGORITHMDecember 2022September 2025Abandon3330YesNo
18078525METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ASSESSMENT AND PREDICTING SLEEPINESS DURING OSA SCREENING USING CONSUMER DEVICESDecember 2022July 2025Abandon3120NoNo
17955700METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CLINICAL TRIALS MATCHINGSeptember 2022December 2025Abandon3930NoNo
17932170BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION ACQUISITION DEVICE AND BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION ACQUISITION METHODSeptember 2022July 2025Abandon3420YesNo
17856106METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IMPROVING PATIENT PRE-SCREENING FOR RECRUITMENT IN CLINICALS TRIALSJuly 2022November 2024Abandon2910NoNo
17827819METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING USER WELLBEINGMay 2022April 2025Abandon3420NoNo
17778919A SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRIGGERING AN ACTION BASED ON A DISEASE SEVERITY OR AFFECTIVE STATE OF A SUBJECTMay 2022January 2025Abandon3220NoNo
17712811MULTIDOSE PACKAGING TARGETING SYSTEMApril 2022June 2024Allow2710YesNo
17712739LABORATORY SAMPLE DELIVERY AND BROKER SYSTEMApril 2022February 2026Abandon4740YesNo
17703061METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING PRESCRIPTION DRUG PREPARATION, DISTRIBUTION AND DELIVERY SERVICES THROUGH ELECTRONIC PRESCRIPTIONMarch 2022January 2025Abandon3320YesNo
17595029INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAMNovember 2021November 2024Abandon3620NoNo
17601344APPARATUS, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PREDICTING, SCREENING AND MONITORING OF MORTALITY AND OTHER CONDITIONS UIRF 19054October 2021January 2025Abandon4020NoNo
17489441USING MACHINE LEARNING TO ASSESS MEDICAL INFORMATION BASED ON A SPATIAL CELL ORGANIZATION ANALYSISSeptember 2021February 2026Abandon5260YesNo
17393816AUTOMATIC AND REMOTE VISUO-MECHANICS AUDITINGAugust 2021February 2025Allow4331YesNo
17363944METHOD OF HUB COMMUNICATIONJune 2021April 2025Allow4540YesNo
17313927MOBILE MEDICAL SYSTEM AND METHODMay 2021October 2024Abandon4220NoNo
17308561COMPREHENSIVE DIGITAL HEALTHCARE PLATFORMMay 2021January 2026Abandon5630YesYes
17206187MAPPING A PATIENT TO CLINICAL TRIALS FOR PATIENT SPECIFIC CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORTMarch 2021January 2026Abandon5840NoYes
17189361METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ENFORCING FACILITY OCCUPANCYMarch 2021April 2025Abandon5050YesNo
17156256SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AN ONLINE MEDICAL PANELJanuary 2021March 2026Abandon6060YesNo
17056232DIAGNOSIS ASSISTANCE SYSTEM AND DIAGNOSIS ASSISTANCE DEVICEJanuary 2021April 2025Abandon5240YesNo
17058014PERFORMING A PROGNOSTIC EVALUATIONNovember 2020August 2025Abandon5760NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CHOI, DAVID.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
2
Examiner Affirmed
2
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
17.8%
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
2
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
9.9%
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 CHOI, DAVID - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner CHOI, DAVID works in Art Unit 3684 and has examined 12 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 16.7%, 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 CHOI, DAVID's allowance rate of 16.7% places them in the 2% 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 CHOI, DAVID receive 3.92 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 97% 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 CHOI, DAVID 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 +28.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CHOI, DAVID. This interview benefit is in the 76% 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, 7.7% 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.

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, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 20% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 2% 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.

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.
  • 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.