Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16995700 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS PROCESSING DATA | August 2020 | March 2023 | Allow | 31 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16939960 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF DETERMINING FINANCIAL LOSS FOR WORKER'S COMPENSATION INJURY CLAIMS | July 2020 | August 2023 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16836439 | METHOD, APPARATUS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR VALIDATING ELECTRONIC REBATE CLAIMS | March 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16784727 | SERVER-NEUTRAL NETWORK ARCHITECTURE | February 2020 | September 2023 | Abandon | 43 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16773373 | PATIENT MANAGEMENT APPARATUS AND PATIENT MANAGEMENT METHOD | January 2020 | June 2023 | Abandon | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16601322 | SOFTWARE APPLICATION FOR PATIENT CARE AND RELATED DEVICE, SYSTEM, AND METHOD | October 2019 | March 2023 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16586753 | FILTERING MEDICAL INFORMATION | September 2019 | July 2023 | Allow | 45 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16490815 | PATIENT PREDICTIVE ADMISSION, DISCHARGE, AND MONITORING TOOL | September 2019 | December 2022 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16448614 | RESOURCE ALLOCATION METHOD, APPARATUS, SYSTEM, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM | June 2019 | September 2023 | Abandon | 51 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15851389 | INFERRING SEMANTIC DATA ORGANIZATION FROM MACHINE-LEARNED RELATIONSHIPS | December 2017 | June 2023 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15783727 | Systems and Methods For Matching Patients To Best Fit Providers Of Chronic Disease Prevention Programs | October 2017 | October 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 15783769 | Systems and Methods For Monitoring Compliance With Chronic Disease Prevention Programs | October 2017 | March 2021 | Abandon | 41 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15783896 | Systems and Methods For Performing Health Risk Assessments and Risk Stratification On A Patient Population | October 2017 | September 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BURGESS, JOSEPH D.
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.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner BURGESS, JOSEPH D works in Art Unit 3686 and has examined 13 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 53.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 41 months.
Examiner BURGESS, JOSEPH D's allowance rate of 53.8% places them in the 16% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by BURGESS, JOSEPH D receive 3.15 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 87% 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 BURGESS, JOSEPH D is 41 months. This places the examiner in the 22% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +22.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BURGESS, JOSEPH D. This interview benefit is in the 66% 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, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 16% 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 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 4% 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 file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 93% 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 45% 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.