USPTO Examiner BULTHUIS ANTHONY JAMES - Art Unit 3715

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18789097AUTOMATED COMPUTER CODE TIMELINE GENERATIONJuly 2024December 2025Allow1620YesNo
18789084COMPUTER CODE EVALUATION USING MACHINE LEARNING ARCHITECTURESJuly 2024December 2025Abandon1620YesNo
18158931AIRCRAFT SIMULATION YOKE, AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODSJanuary 2023January 2026Allow3600NoNo
17558040MAKEUP PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUMDecember 2021January 2026Abandon4920NoNo
17617553MITRAL VALVE MODEL AND FIXING JIGDecember 2021January 2026Abandon5011NoNo
17609780STUDY MATERIAL FOR NATIVE SPEAKER PRONUNCIATION BY BEGINNERS IN ENGLISH, AND ENGLISH STUDY METHOD USING SAMENovember 2021May 2025Abandon4310NoNo
17382558Machine Learning Based Strength Training System and Apparatus Providing Technique FeedbackJuly 2021May 2025Abandon4510NoNo
17369034AGGREGATION OF UNCONSCIOUS AND CONSCIOUS BEHAVIORS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AND AUTHENTICATIONJuly 2021November 2025Abandon5320NoNo
17366191CHANGING BEHAVIOR AFFECTING SLEEPJuly 2021May 2025Abandon4610NoNo
17363464MATH GAMEJune 2021April 2025Abandon4610NoNo
17358881Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) Tactile DisplayJune 2021October 2025Allow5120NoNo
17358896VIDEO EDUCATION CONTENT PROVIDING METHOD AND APPARATUS BASED ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING USING CHARACTERSJune 2021April 2025Abandon4610NoNo
17352368SERVER DEVICE, METHOD FOR SERVER DEVICE, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICEJune 2021September 2025Abandon5110NoNo
17304375Medical Training Device and Method to Use it in Teaching Laparoscopic and Robotic Partial NephrectomyJune 2021January 2026Allow5511YesNo
17350456Integrated System and Related Methods for Learning, Collaboration, Tournament Hosting, and Business ManagementJune 2021September 2025Abandon5120NoNo
17303988TASK TRAINER FOR OPEN CHEST CARDIAC MASSAGEJune 2021October 2025Allow5220NoNo
17303930METHOD, AN APPARATUS AND A COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR PROVIDING A NEXT WORKOUT RECOMMENDATIONJune 2021January 2025Abandon4310NoNo
17303897DIGITAL MICROFLUDICS-BASED BRAILLE ACTUATION IN A STRETCHABLE DISPLAYJune 2021November 2025Allow5330YesNo
17332997Method, System, and Computer Program Product for Matching Stress-Management Application Software to the Needs of a UserMay 2021September 2025Abandon5230YesNo
17332524Surgical Simulation Object Rectification SystemMay 2021February 2026Allow5730NoNo

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 BULTHUIS, ANTHONY JAMES - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner BULTHUIS, ANTHONY JAMES works in Art Unit 3715 and has examined 17 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 29.4%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 51 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner BULTHUIS, ANTHONY JAMES's allowance rate of 29.4% places them in the 4% 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 BULTHUIS, ANTHONY JAMES receive 1.65 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 33% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by BULTHUIS, ANTHONY JAMES is 51 months. This places the examiner in the 5% 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 +45.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BULTHUIS, ANTHONY JAMES. This interview benefit is in the 91% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 37.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 86% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 100.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 100% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 41% 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.

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.
  • Consider after-final amendments: This examiner frequently enters after-final amendments. If you can clearly overcome rejections with claim amendments, file an after-final amendment before resorting to an RCE.
  • RCEs are effective: This examiner has a high allowance rate after RCE compared to others. If you receive a final rejection and have substantive amendments or arguments, an RCE is likely to be successful.
  • 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.