Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17095299 | METHOD AND A SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING TREATMENT STRATEGIES ON A VIRTUAL MODEL OF A PATIENT | November 2020 | May 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17092431 | METHOD FOR DETERMINING EFFECT FOR AN INDIVIDUAL PATIENT | November 2020 | February 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17003736 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OFFERING PRODUCTS BASED ON MEDICAL ASSESSMENTS | August 2020 | June 2024 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16984118 | SYSTEMS FOR MANAGING BIOPSY SPECIMENS | August 2020 | June 2024 | Allow | 46 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16754399 | ANALYZING CLINICAL PATHWAYS | April 2020 | October 2024 | Abandon | 55 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 16652878 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR HEALTHCARE CLINICAL TRIALS | April 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 15131738 | Healthcare Information System With Clinical Information Exchange | April 2016 | September 2018 | Allow | 29 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13933100 | ROUTE NAVIGATION FOR OPTIMAL MOBILE COVERAGE | July 2013 | January 2015 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12641644 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING PHARMACEUTICAL ORDERS TO DETERMINE WHETHER A BUYER OF PHARMACEUTICALS QUALIFIES FOR AN "OWN USE" DISCOUNT | December 2009 | October 2011 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12537519 | ONLINE METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR FULFILLING NEEDS RESULTING FROM PROPERTY AND OTHER SIMILAR LOSSES | August 2009 | October 2011 | Allow | 26 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12342644 | PROCESS OF INTERFACING A PATIENT INDIRECTLY WITH THEIR OWN ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS | December 2008 | February 2011 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11929472 | DISEASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD INCLUDING PERMISSION DATABASE | October 2007 | December 2013 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 11769553 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IMPROVING THE LOSS RATIO ON AN INSURANCE PROGRAM BOOK | June 2007 | September 2010 | Allow | 39 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 11423881 | METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR INCREASING AND/OR FOR MONITORING A PARTY'S COMPLIANCE WITH A SCHEDULE FOR TAKING MEDICINES | June 2006 | May 2011 | Allow | 59 | 3 | 2 | Yes | No |
| 11444082 | SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING EXPERT CARE TO A BASIC CARE MEDICAL FACILITY FROM A REMOTE LOCATION | May 2006 | September 2009 | Allow | 40 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10939037 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING A USER-SELECTED HEALTHCARE SERVICES PACKAGE AND HEALTHCARE SERVICES PANEL CUSTOMIZED BASED ON A USER'S SELECTIONS | September 2004 | March 2009 | Abandon | 55 | 5 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 10922302 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DISPENSING, TRACKING AND MANAGING PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS | August 2004 | March 2010 | Allow | 60 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10808810 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING A USER-SELECTED HEALTHCARE SERVICES PACKAGE AND HEALTHCARE SERVICES PANEL CUSTOMIZED BASED ON A USER'S SELECTIONS | March 2004 | June 2010 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10463125 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INSURING CLUB MEMBERSHIP FEES | June 2003 | December 2009 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10395400 | PERSONAL BUSINESS SERVICE SYSTEM AND METHOD | March 2003 | April 2013 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10290725 | SYSTEM AND PROCESS FOR MATCHING PATIENTS WITH CLINICAL MEDICAL TRIALS | November 2002 | April 2008 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 09941682 | PRESCRIPTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | August 2001 | March 2009 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 09865696 | METHOD FOR MONITORING RADIOLOGY MACHINES, OPERATORS AND EXAMINATIONS | May 2001 | September 2010 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 09681413 | REINSURANCE AUCTION PROCESS | March 2001 | October 2008 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 09798182 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR INSURING AN ENTITY'S EXPOSURE TO LIABILITY | March 2001 | January 2008 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner PORTER, RACHEL L.
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, 66.7% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner PORTER, RACHEL L works in Art Unit 3684 and has examined 25 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 80.0%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 55 months.
Examiner PORTER, RACHEL L's allowance rate of 80.0% 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 PORTER, RACHEL L receive 3.36 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 90% 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 PORTER, RACHEL L is 55 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.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +25.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by PORTER, RACHEL L. This interview benefit is in the 71% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 23.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 35% 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 16.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 21% 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, 40.0% 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, 62.5% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 65% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 44.0% of allowed cases (in the 100% 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 44% 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.