USPTO Examiner EVANS ASHLEY ELIZABETH - Art Unit 3686

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18292964METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATING STANDARD API SPECIFICATION FOR DATA DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN HETEROGENEOUS SYSTEMSJanuary 2024June 2024Allow500NoNo
17657183SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CARE AND DISEASE MANAGEMENTMarch 2022August 2024Abandon2810NoNo
17702378Communication Application for Care FacilitiesMarch 2022August 2024Abandon2910NoNo
17700749INTERACTIVE GRAPHICAL SYSTEM FOR ESTIMATING BODY MEASUREMENTSMarch 2022March 2024Allow2300NoNo
17697343SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A CONTINUOUS PATIENT ENGAGEMENT ORAL CARE MODELMarch 2022August 2024Abandon2910NoNo
17586107ELECTRONIC PATIENT ADVISOR AND HEALTHCARE SYSTEM FOR REMOTE MANAGEMENT OF CHRONIC CONDITIONSJanuary 2022July 2024Abandon3010NoNo
17648926APPLIED BEHAVIORAL THERAPY APPARATUS AND METHODJanuary 2022July 2024Abandon2910NoNo
17567853METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM TO DETERMINE USER'S MENTAL STATE BY USING USER'S BEHAVIOR DATA OR INPUT DATAJanuary 2022June 2024Abandon3010NoNo
17567486SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IMAGE ANALYSIS USING SEQUENTIAL MACHINE LEARNING MODELS WITH UNCERTAINTY ESTIMATIONJanuary 2022July 2024Abandon3010NoNo
17528527SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REAL-TIME ACCESS TO STANDARDIZED MEDICATION INFORMATIONNovember 2021May 2024Abandon3010NoNo
17594234SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROCESSING MRI DATAOctober 2021April 2024Abandon3010NoNo
17488465SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PREDICTION OF INTRADIALYTIC ADVERSE EVENT AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM THEREOFSeptember 2021April 2024Allow3110YesNo
17478927Two-Sided Digitized Healthcare Assets PlatformSeptember 2021April 2024Abandon3110NoNo
17444880NOTIFICATION OF PRIVACY ASPECTS OF HEALTHCARE PROVIDER ENVIRONMENTS DURING TELEMEDICINE SESSIONSAugust 2021September 2024Abandon3720YesNo
17389814HEALTHCARE WORKER BURNOUT DETECTION TOOLJuly 2021February 2024Abandon3010NoNo
17416382SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING HUMAN PERFORMANCEJune 2021September 2024Abandon3920YesNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner EVANS, ASHLEY ELIZABETH - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner EVANS, ASHLEY ELIZABETH works in Art Unit 3686 and has examined 7 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 14.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 31 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner EVANS, ASHLEY ELIZABETH's allowance rate of 14.3% 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 EVANS, ASHLEY ELIZABETH receive 1.29 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 18% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by EVANS, ASHLEY ELIZABETH is 31 months. This places the examiner in the 57% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +33.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by EVANS, ASHLEY ELIZABETH. This interview benefit is in the 81% 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.

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.

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.
  • 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.

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.