Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17105999 | Healthcare Methods and Systems with Drive Through Building Structure/Architecture | November 2020 | December 2024 | Allow | 49 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16918183 | ORDER CREATION SUPPORT APPARATUS AND ORDER CREATION SUPPORT METHOD | July 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 53 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16818351 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COLLECTING, ANALYZING, AND SHARING BIO-SIGNAL AND NON-BIO-SIGNAL DATA | March 2020 | August 2024 | Allow | 53 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16773942 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INTELLIGENT COMPLETION OF MEDICAL RECORD BASED ON BIG DATA ANALYTICS | January 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 54 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16717290 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF AUTOMATICALLY CORRECTING ERRORS ASSOCIATED WITH PATIENT INSURANCE PROFILES | December 2019 | June 2024 | Allow | 54 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16618614 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COMMUNICATING HEALTH DATA IN A HEALTHCARE ENVIRONMENT | December 2019 | August 2024 | Allow | 56 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16492387 | PATIENT STATUS MONITOR WITH VISUALLY STRONG PATIENT STATUS DISPLAY | September 2019 | May 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16130762 | ARRANGEMENTS FOR INTRAORAL SCANNING | September 2018 | February 2020 | Allow | 17 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15846270 | HEALTH TREND IDENTIFICATION | December 2017 | February 2019 | Allow | 14 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15674533 | SYSTEM FOR A CUSTOMER AND MEDICAL SYSTEM INTERFACE | August 2017 | July 2022 | Abandon | 59 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15423798 | COGNITIVE NOTIFICATION FOR MENTAL SUPPORT | February 2017 | November 2019 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14388009 | METHOD AND A SYSTEM TO DETERMINE AND INDICATE THE TIME FEASIBILITY OF A CLINICAL PATHWAY, ENABLING WORKFLOW ADJUSTMENTS | September 2014 | May 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 11 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14373575 | "INDIMA APPARATUS" SYSTEM, METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR INDIVIDUALIZED AND COLLABORATIVE HEALTH CARE | July 2014 | January 2020 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13294959 | AUTOMATIC CODING OF PATIENT OUTCOMES | November 2011 | March 2013 | Allow | 16 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13218879 | Using an NFC Enabled Mobile Device To Manage Digital Medical Artifacts | August 2011 | November 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 12842185 | METHOD AND IMAGE-PROCESSING SYSTEM FOR GENERATING A VOLUME-VIEWING IMAGE OF THE INTERIOR OF A BODY | July 2010 | November 2016 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12817846 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PERFORMING TOMOGRAPHIC IMAGE ACQUISITION AND RECONSTRUCTION | June 2010 | June 2016 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12751766 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IMAGE SEQUENCE PROCESSING | March 2010 | October 2012 | Allow | 30 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12551759 | SITUATIONAL AWARENESS/TRIAGE TOOL FOR USE IN A CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL, RADIOLOGICAL NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE (CBRNE) ENVIRONMENT | September 2009 | September 2013 | Allow | 48 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12480817 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATICALLY ASSOCIATING AN ASSESSOR WITH A MEDICAL ASSESSMENT TASK | June 2009 | July 2012 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12408091 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGING OPERATIONS AND PROCESSES IN HEALTHCARE DELIVERY IN A HOSPITAL | March 2009 | August 2011 | Allow | 29 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12221673 | POSITION CORRECTION APPARATUS | August 2008 | September 2011 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11969027 | SIDE EFFECTS PREDICTION USING CO-ASSOCIATING BIOATTRIBUTES | January 2008 | March 2014 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11957145 | HEALTH DATA GENERATING METHOD, HEALTH DATA GENERATION APPARATUS THEREFOR, USER TERMINAL THEREFOR, AND COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM THEREFOR | December 2007 | August 2013 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11913577 | ULTRASONOGRAPHIC DEVICE | November 2007 | February 2014 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11804085 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SUBMITTING MEDICATION CLAIMS BY POINT-OF-CARE PHYSICIANS | May 2007 | October 2012 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11458069 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING A SEARCHABLE DATABASE OF SURGICAL INFORMATION | July 2006 | March 2011 | Allow | 56 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10469800 | Mobile advertising methods and improvements | May 2004 | February 2018 | Abandon | 60 | 23 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner HOLCOMB, MARK.
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, 11.1% 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 HOLCOMB, MARK works in Art Unit 3685 and has examined 28 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 78.6%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 56 months.
Examiner HOLCOMB, MARK's allowance rate of 78.6% places them in the 48% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by HOLCOMB, MARK receive 4.04 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 96% 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 HOLCOMB, MARK is 56 months. This places the examiner in the 3% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -6.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HOLCOMB, MARK. This interview benefit is in the 5% percentile among all examiners. Note: Interviews show limited statistical benefit with this examiner compared to others, though they may still be valuable for clarifying issues.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 17.9% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 19% 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 7.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 9% 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, 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 28.6% of appeals filed. This is in the 4% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 50.0% 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, 81.2% 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 39% 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 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.