USPTO Examiner MACCAGNO PIERRE L - Art Unit 3687

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18781208SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING-BASED CLASSIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDSJuly 2024January 2026Allow1830YesNo
18658198SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MULTILABEL TEXT CLASSIFICATION FOR AUTOMATIC LABELING OF PATIENT SELF-REPORTSMay 2024March 2026Abandon2210NoNo
18402288APPARATUSES AND METHODS FOR PAYMENT FOR CONSUMABLE CONTENTJanuary 2024September 2024Allow910NoNo
18556613DEEP NEURAL NETWORKS FOR PREDICTING POST-OPERATIVE OUTCOMESOctober 2023November 2025Abandon2510NoNo
18364470METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DISCOVERING ADVERSE DRUG REACTION SIGNAL BASED ON CAUSAL DISCOVERYAugust 2023January 2025Abandon1820YesNo
18349700INDIVIDUALIZED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR TREATING DISEASE, INCLUDING GI DISEASES, AND METHODS OF USE THEREOFJuly 2023March 2026Abandon3211NoNo
18313614Patient Registry SystemMay 2023September 2025Abandon2820NoNo
18142508APPARATUS AND A METHOD FOR THE GENERATION OF A PLURALITY OF PERSONAL TARGETSMay 2023December 2024Allow1940YesNo
18140383METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIA FOR DECREASING PATIENT PROCESSING TIME IN A CLINICAL SETTINGApril 2023May 2025Abandon2510NoNo
18188974FALL RISK ANALYSIS USING BALANCE PROFILESMarch 2023November 2025Abandon3220NoNo
18075215INTELLIGENT ANALYTICS AND QUALITY ASSESSMENT FOR SURGICAL OPERATIONS AND PRACTICESDecember 2022August 2025Abandon3320NoNo
17959190SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CLAIM PROCESSINGOctober 2022January 2026Allow4040NoNo
17842431SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING SAFETY AND PRODUCTIVITY OF PHYSICAL TASKSJune 2022December 2025Abandon4221NoYes
17564874METHOD FOR PREDICTING MEDICINAL EFFECTS OF COMPOUNDS USING DEEP LEARNINGDecember 2021November 2025Abandon4730NoNo
17644224CONSUMER DEVICE PAYMENT TOKEN MANAGEMENTDecember 2021December 2025Abandon4840NoNo
17456588DISABILITY LEVEL AUTOMATIC JUDGMENT DEVICE AND A DISABILITY LEVEL AUTOMATIC JUDGMENT METHODNovember 2021November 2024Abandon3610NoNo
17533993PATIENT PROVIDER MATCHING SYSTEMNovember 2021November 2025Abandon4820YesNo
17593203AN INTEGRATED HEALTH AND SECURITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSeptember 2021March 2025Abandon4320NoNo
17436743INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINE USING CAUSAL MODELSSeptember 2021April 2025Abandon4320NoNo
17408895METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR DETERMINING THIRD PARTY LIABILITY FOR A CLAIMAugust 2021March 2025Abandon4240YesNo
17407211System and Method for Adaptive Auditory WellnessAugust 2021July 2025Abandon4740YesNo
17370306TRADING PLANNING APPARATUS AND TRADING PLANNING METHODJuly 2021December 2024Abandon4230YesNo
17353621Automobile Monitoring Systems and Methods for Loss Reserving and Financial ReportingJune 2021November 2024Abandon4030YesNo
17312827SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETECTION AND MONITORING OF OVER SEDATION TO PREVENT HARM TO PATIENTSJune 2021November 2024Abandon4120NoNo
17342973CLASSIFYING AND ANSWERING MEDICAL INQUIRIES BASED ON MACHINE-GENERATED DATA RESOURCES AND MACHINE LEARNING MODELSJune 2021March 2025Abandon4520NoNo
17335893METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DECISION SUPPORTJune 2021December 2024Abandon4320NoNo
17296688SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MATCHING MEDICAL CONCEPTS IN RADIOLOGICAL REPORTSMay 2021October 2025Abandon5221NoNo
17210253Automated Clinical Documentation System and MethodMarch 2021August 2025Abandon5311NoNo
17156318PREDICTION OF ADHESIONS BASED ON BIOMARKER MONITORINGJanuary 2021December 2025Abandon5940YesNo
17059162SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EFFICIENTLY DELIVERING DATA TO TARGET USERSNovember 2020August 2025Abandon5660YesNo
16579221SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR UTILIZING PREPAID CARDS TO FACILITATE PURCHASES IN ASSOCIATION WITH A GAMING ESTABLISHMENT RETAIL ACCOUNTSeptember 2019March 2025Abandon6060YesNo
16576519SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CARD REPLACEMENTSeptember 2019September 2024Allow6080YesNo
16535984SECURE QR CODE TRANSACTIONSAugust 2019May 2025Allow6070YesYes
16420744Compliance Aware Crime Risk Avoidance SystemMay 2019November 2024Abandon6050NoYes
14745688FAILURE MODELING BY INCORPORATION OF TERRESTRIAL CONDITIONSJune 2015September 2024Allow60120YesYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MACCAGNO, PIERRE L.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
1
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
18.1%
Lower than average

What This Means

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.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
5
Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(40.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
3
(60.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
67.1%
Higher than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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, 40.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.

Strategic Recommendations

Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.

Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Examiner MACCAGNO, PIERRE L - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner MACCAGNO, PIERRE L works in Art Unit 3687 and has examined 22 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 13.6%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 48 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner MACCAGNO, PIERRE L's allowance rate of 13.6% 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 MACCAGNO, PIERRE L receive 3.86 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 97% 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 MACCAGNO, PIERRE L is 48 months. This places the examiner in the 8% 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 +27.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MACCAGNO, PIERRE L. This interview benefit is in the 75% 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, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 1% 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 9.1% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 99% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 75.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 66% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 66.7% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows above-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. The mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) provides an opportunity for reconsideration.

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.
  • Request pre-appeal conferences: PACs are highly effective with this examiner. Before filing a full appeal brief, request a PAC to potentially resolve issues without full PTAB review.
  • 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.