Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18945429 | SMART CARD SECURE ONLINE CHECKOUT | November 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 13 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18697078 | CONTROL SYSTEM, CONTROL METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | March 2024 | January 2026 | Abandon | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18379591 | Electronic Devices and Corresponding Methods for Presenting Notification Data Structures as a Function of User Data Structures | October 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17815437 | VALUATION OF INVITATIONAL CONTENT SLOTS BASED ON USER ATTENTIVENESS | July 2022 | July 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17521478 | DATA PROCESSING METHOD AND DEVICE AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | November 2021 | November 2025 | Abandon | 48 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13844404 | PATIENT SAFETY PROCESSOR | March 2013 | March 2018 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12860204 | METHOD FOR SEGMENTING AN ORGAN IN VOLUME DATA RECORDS FROM MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING | August 2010 | January 2013 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12626635 | GENERATION AND SHARING OF A CUSTOM MODE OF A MEDICAL INSTRUMENT THROUGH A SOCIAL COMMUNITY | November 2009 | January 2013 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12207975 | EXTENSIBLE THERAPY DELIVERY SYSTEM AND METHOD THEREOF | September 2008 | July 2013 | Allow | 59 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12128495 | COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING SOCIAL SERVICES TO INDIVIDUALS BY EMPLOYING BI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION | May 2008 | June 2013 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12152853 | AUTOMATED INSURANCE CLAIM PRIMACY RESOLUTION AND CLAIM RESOLUTION | May 2008 | May 2012 | Allow | 48 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12103787 | ALLERGY PREVENTION | April 2008 | March 2012 | Allow | 47 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11243372 | AFTER-HOURS RADIOLOGY SYSTEM | October 2005 | May 2010 | Allow | 56 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner PATEL, NEHA.
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, 50.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner PATEL, NEHA works in Art Unit 3699 and has examined 9 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 88.9%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 48 months.
Examiner PATEL, NEHA's allowance rate of 88.9% places them in the 70% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by PATEL, NEHA 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.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by PATEL, NEHA 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.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -20.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by PATEL, NEHA. This interview benefit is in the 2% 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, 28.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 52% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 33.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 50% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 98% 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 frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 85.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 87% 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 11.1% of allowed cases (in the 94% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
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.