USPTO Examiner EVANS ASHLEY ELIZABETH - Art Unit 3687

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18786053METHOD FOR PREDICTING CONSUMPTION OF SURGICAL CONSUMABLES DURING SURGICAL OPERATIONJuly 2024February 2026Abandon1910NoNo
18716788Self-Controlling Wearable DeviceJune 2024January 2026Abandon2010NoNo
18562191METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AGGREGATING DATANovember 2023February 2026Abandon2710NoNo
18460320SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING HISTORY AND PHYSICAL EXAM NOTESSeptember 2023September 2025Abandon2410NoNo
18213542FORMULATION INFORMATION MANAGEMENT DEVICE, METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUMJune 2023March 2026Abandon3220YesNo
18205249SCALABLE FRAMEWORK FOR DIGITAL MESHJune 2023March 2026Abandon3320NoNo
18311487Treatment SupportMay 2023March 2026Abandon3420NoNo
18024748INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, SUBJECT TERMINAL, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEMMarch 2023May 2025Abandon2610NoNo
18020921METHOD FOR GENERATING INDIVIDUAL NUTRITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A USERFebruary 2023March 2025Abandon2510NoNo
18105617METHOD FOR PRESCRIBING A CLINICAL TRIALFebruary 2023December 2025Abandon3420NoNo
18159810MEDICAL PROCEDURE COST COMPARISON TOOLJanuary 2023May 2025Abandon2710NoNo
18149159INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAMJanuary 2023September 2025Abandon3320YesNo
18062020INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAMDecember 2022August 2025Abandon3220NoNo
18061922SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROCESSING MEDICAL DATADecember 2022April 2025Abandon2810NoNo
17967863ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE/MACHINE LEARNING BASED BIOINFORMATICS PLATFORM FOR ENCEPHALOPATHY AND MEDICAL DECISION IMPROVEMENT METHODOctober 2022September 2025Abandon3520NoNo
17914723DISCOMFORT GRAPH GENERATING METHOD AND SYSTEMSeptember 2022March 2025Abandon3010NoNo
17900815Synchronous Clinical Data Collection, Analysis and Reporting System and Method ThereforAugust 2022February 2025Abandon2910NoNo
17879839METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PREDICTING AND PREVENTING FREQUENT PATIENT READMISSIONAugust 2022January 2025Abandon2910NoNo
17879806METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETERMINING AND DISPLAYING PATIENT READMISSION RISKAugust 2022January 2025Abandon3010NoNo
17816878PLATFORM FOR ROUTING CLINICAL DATAAugust 2022August 2025Allow3720YesNo
17768111System and Method for Steering Care Plan Actions by Detecting Tone, Emotion, and/or Health OutcomeApril 2022October 2024Abandon3010NoNo
17657373HEARING DEVICE WITH HEALTH FUNCTIONMarch 2022March 2025Abandon3520YesNo
17657376SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING TARGETED OUTPUTSMarch 2022October 2024Abandon3010NoNo
17701231SYSTEM AND METHODS OF MONITORING A PATIENT AND DOCUMENTING TREATMENTMarch 2022May 2025Abandon3820NoNo
17697216APPARATUSES AND METHODS FOR ADAPTIVELY CONTROLLING CRYOABLATION SYSTEMSMarch 2022May 2025Allow3830YesNo
17672820ULTRASOUND DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS AND ULTRASOUND EXAMINATION ASSISTING METHODFebruary 2022January 2025Abandon3520NoNo
17567113CENTRAL MONITORING SYSTEM, MONITORING DEVICE, MOBILE TERMINAL, AND PATIENT MONITORING METHODJanuary 2022January 2026Abandon4940YesNo
17534262APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CALCULATING AN OPTIMUM MEDICATION DOSENovember 2021September 2025Allow4630YesNo
17521421METHODS, SYSTEMS, APPARATUSES, AND DEVICES FOR MANAGING A SPREAD OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES AMONG USERSNovember 2021December 2024Abandon3720NoNo
17518464Communication System and MethodNovember 2021October 2025Abandon4740YesNo
17501119PREDICTING PERFORMANCE OF CLINICAL TRIAL FACILITATORS USING PATIENT CLAIMS AND HISTORICAL DATAOctober 2021February 2026Abandon5240YesNo
17433212SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING QUANTITATIVE HEALTH-RELATED PERFORMANCE STATUS OF A PATIENTAugust 2021January 2025Abandon4120YesNo

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 3687 and has examined 5 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 20.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 46 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner EVANS, ASHLEY ELIZABETH's allowance rate of 20.0% 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 3.00 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by EVANS, ASHLEY ELIZABETH is 46 months. This places the examiner in the 11% 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 +25.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by EVANS, ASHLEY ELIZABETH. This interview benefit is in the 72% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 14% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 100% 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 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.
  • 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.