Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16632401 | CLEANING SYSTEM | January 2020 | December 2021 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16595447 | SAR ROLLER | October 2019 | June 2020 | Abandon | 9 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16582715 | STAND UP SANDER ASSEMBLY | September 2019 | November 2023 | Abandon | 50 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16454725 | POLISHING PAD FOR SUBSTRATE POLISHING APPARATUS AND SUBSTRATE POLISHING APPARATUS HAVING POLISHING PAD | June 2019 | July 2023 | Abandon | 49 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16414275 | Device for Tensioning a Screw | May 2019 | August 2023 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16380352 | WRENCH EXTENSION DEVICE | April 2019 | October 2023 | Abandon | 55 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15988800 | Flexible Wrench | May 2018 | October 2020 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15968532 | HIGH NOSE CLAMP | May 2018 | October 2020 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15753137 | CLEANER AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF | February 2018 | October 2020 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15749689 | ROBOT CLEANER | February 2018 | July 2020 | Abandon | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15849230 | Method and Machine for Finishing a Spherically Curved Surface Portion of a Workpiece by Means of a Finishing Tool and a Dressing Tool for the Finishing Tool | December 2017 | October 2020 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15738569 | DEVICE FOR SMOOTHING AND/OR FLOATING | December 2017 | December 2019 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15818238 | GLASS CLEANER | November 2017 | January 2020 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15575062 | ELECTROMAGNETIC PIG FOR OIL AND GAS PIPELINES | November 2017 | January 2020 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15816840 | PET DE-SHEDDING TOOL | November 2017 | December 2019 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15816854 | GRILL CLEANER INCLUDING WIRE LOOPS | November 2017 | December 2019 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15808139 | SHOCK-ABSORBING TOOL HANDLE | November 2017 | April 2020 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15806060 | RATCHET WRENCH | November 2017 | June 2020 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15801384 | WHEEL LUG NUT TOOL | November 2017 | August 2020 | Abandon | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15684709 | PHOSPHOROUS MODIFIED MOLECULAR SIEVES, THEIR USE IN CONVERSION OF ORGANICS TO OLEFINS | August 2017 | May 2018 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15536282 | MAGNETIC FIELD GENERATION APPARATUS OF MAGNETORHEOLOGICAL POLISHING DEVICE | June 2017 | November 2019 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15601864 | Anti-slip Wrench-Type Tool | May 2017 | March 2020 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15450587 | MULTIPURPOSE HAND HELD TOOLS | March 2017 | May 2020 | Abandon | 38 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15347313 | INSERT BIT | November 2016 | June 2020 | Abandon | 43 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15297397 | Tai Chi Sword Brush | October 2016 | December 2019 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15217641 | ADJUSTABLE PLIERS | July 2016 | April 2020 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15210061 | Wire Stripping Machine | July 2016 | October 2020 | Abandon | 51 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15203861 | SELF-LOCKING PLIERS | July 2016 | June 2020 | Abandon | 47 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14799034 | STREAMLINED FLAT WINDSCREEN WIPER | July 2015 | June 2019 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14755030 | OFFSET WRENCH | June 2015 | November 2019 | Abandon | 53 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 14713898 | SONIC ELECTRIC TOOTHBRUSH | May 2015 | April 2019 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14421184 | SANDING SYSTEM | April 2015 | December 2019 | Abandon | 58 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 14681157 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR WRINGING A MOP | April 2015 | October 2018 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14671877 | SOLAR MODULE CLEANER | March 2015 | March 2019 | Abandon | 48 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14425697 | INCORPORATING ADDITIVES INTO FIXED ABRASIVE WEBS FOR IMPROVED CMP PERFORMANCE | March 2015 | November 2019 | Abandon | 57 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14135413 | RADIAL FOLDOUT TOOL WITH MULTIPLE TYPES OF TOOLS AND BIT STORAGE | December 2013 | March 2020 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14028708 | ABRASIVE FLAP DISC | September 2013 | November 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13690927 | WIPER DEVICE FOR CLEANING A VEHICLE WINDSCREEN | November 2012 | December 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13356027 | ADJUSTABLE WRENCH | January 2012 | October 2020 | Abandon | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13265941 | WINDSCREEN WIPER DEVICE | October 2011 | December 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CARTER, MONICA SMITH.
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 CARTER, MONICA SMITH works in Art Unit 3723 and has examined 40 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 5.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.
Examiner CARTER, MONICA SMITH's allowance rate of 5.0% places them in the 1% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by CARTER, MONICA SMITH receive 2.80 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 78% 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 CARTER, MONICA SMITH is 42 months. This places the examiner in the 20% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -7.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CARTER, MONICA SMITH. This interview benefit is in the 5% 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, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 2% 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 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 5% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 2% percentile among all examiners. 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 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 48% 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.