Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18423252 | Articulated Motion Simulator | January 2024 | July 2025 | Abandon | 18 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18563016 | Improved System and Method for Mathematics Education | November 2023 | August 2025 | Abandon | 21 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17938495 | TINNITUS DIGITAL THERAPY METHOD AND APPARATUS WITH COGNITIVE BEHAVIOR THERAPY AND TINNITUS RETRAINING THERAPY | October 2022 | February 2024 | Abandon | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17807941 | MULTI-SIDED MODULAR ERASABLE WRITING PANEL AND SYSTEM FOR ATTACHMENT THEREOF | June 2022 | February 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 17707828 | SPINE SURGICAL TRAINING SYSTEM | March 2022 | March 2026 | Abandon | 47 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17700438 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ELECTRONIC TEXT DISPLAY | March 2022 | November 2023 | Abandon | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17592900 | DEVICE FOR LEARNING AND TRAINING THE UNDERWATER DOLPHIN KICK AND METHODS | February 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17542697 | HAIRSTYLE MAKING PROCEDURE PROPOSAL APPARATUS, HAIRSTYLE MAKING PROCEDURE PROPOSAL METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | December 2021 | March 2026 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17505974 | COGNITIVE COLLABORATING LEARNING USER EXPERIENCE INTERFACE | October 2021 | November 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16989712 | CARDIAC SIMULATION DEVICE | August 2020 | November 2023 | Abandon | 39 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16777699 | OPERATION RANGE SETTING APPARATUS, GAME APPARATUS, OPERATION RANGE SETTING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM | January 2020 | May 2022 | Abandon | 27 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16543149 | METHOD FOR TRIGGERING CARD CREATION AND USING ANALYSIS OF AGGREGATE CARD SUBMISSION DATA TO GENERATE A DYNAMIC SUPERVISOR COMPLIANCE DASHBOARD | August 2019 | August 2022 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16366324 | GAMING IN WELDING TRAINING | March 2019 | May 2022 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16320510 | APPARATUS TO SIMULATE DRIVING AND CORRESPONDING METHOD | January 2019 | October 2022 | Abandon | 44 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16350486 | Interactive behavioral treatment delivery system and method of use | November 2018 | October 2023 | Abandon | 59 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16135850 | Computerized System And Method For Providing Competency-Based Learning | September 2018 | January 2023 | Abandon | 52 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16113377 | ASSESSMENT-BASED MEASURABLE PROGRESS LEARNING SYSTEM | August 2018 | October 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13254598 | ABSORBENT ARTICLE COMPRISING A STIFFENING ELEMENT AND A DEVICE FOR DISPOSAL | September 2011 | April 2014 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12773188 | Wearable Article With Highly Extensible Fastening Member Having Stress Distribution Features | May 2010 | April 2014 | Allow | 47 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12687493 | Two-Piece Wearable Absorbent Article | January 2010 | February 2014 | Allow | 49 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12532014 | DISPOSABLE DIAPER | September 2009 | March 2014 | Allow | 54 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12520252 | INHALATION DEVICE FOR DRUGS IN POWDER FORM | August 2009 | August 2013 | Allow | 49 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 11997100 | METHOD AND APPARATUS TO ATTAIN AND MAINTAIN TARGET END TIDAL GAS CONCENTRATIONS | January 2009 | February 2013 | Allow | 60 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12096682 | ABSORBENT PRODUCT | July 2008 | February 2014 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner VASAT, PETER S.
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.
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, 0.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is less effective here than in most other areas.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner VASAT, PETER S works in Art Unit 3715 and has examined 17 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 41.2%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 49 months.
Examiner VASAT, PETER S's allowance rate of 41.2% places them in the 8% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by VASAT, PETER S receive 2.24 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 62% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by VASAT, PETER S is 49 months. This places the examiner in the 7% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -46.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by VASAT, PETER S. This interview benefit is in the 0% 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, 20.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 21% 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.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 50.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 76% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 20% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 7% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 42% 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.
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.