Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18760655 | CARPET EXTRACTOR | July 2024 | December 2024 | Allow | 5 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18377320 | SURFACE CLEANING APPARATUS | October 2023 | July 2024 | Allow | 10 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18285225 | WINDOW WIPER | September 2023 | July 2025 | Abandon | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18230429 | ROTATABLE BRUSH FOR SURFACE CLEANING APPARATUS | August 2023 | June 2024 | Allow | 10 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18296487 | Horizontally Movable and Vertically Aligned Windshield Wiper System | April 2023 | July 2025 | Abandon | 27 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18083099 | VERTICAL PIPE CLEANING SYSTEM AND METHOD | December 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17972890 | Camera Field of View Cleaning System | October 2022 | July 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17949368 | NOVEL STRUCTURE OF AN ELECTRIC CYLINDRICAL-ROTATION AND IN-LINE SWEEPING TOOTHBRUSH | September 2022 | July 2025 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17902194 | ELECTRIC KNIFE SHARPENER | September 2022 | July 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17901787 | ELECTRIC TOOTHBRUSH FOR PETS | September 2022 | July 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17799281 | CLEANING DEVICE AND CLEANING ROBOT | August 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17718901 | ROBOTIC CLEANER | April 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17754338 | ANTIBACTERIAL MOLDED ARTICLE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME | March 2022 | July 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17406060 | Electric Handle, Electric Toothbrush and Electric Cleaning Brush | August 2021 | March 2025 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16566839 | Rock tumbling method and apparatus | September 2019 | December 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 16347302 | EQUIPMENT FOR SURFACE PROCESSING OF PLATE-SHAPED ELEMENTS | May 2019 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15395807 | METHOD FOR ENSURING USE INTENTIONS OF A TOUCH SCREEN DEVICE | December 2016 | July 2019 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15206535 | Random Access to Properties for Lists in User Interfaces | July 2016 | February 2019 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14777200 | LAMINATED BLADE CORES | September 2015 | December 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 14371595 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR SELECTION AND REPRODUCTION OF CONTENT | July 2014 | March 2019 | Allow | 56 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13677995 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTENT SIZE ADJUSTMENT | November 2012 | March 2018 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13346047 | ENABLING A USER TO INVOKE A FUNCTION VIA A SHORTCUT KEY IN A MULTI-WINDOW COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT | January 2012 | December 2015 | Allow | 47 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13227329 | EFFICIENT BROWSING, SELECTION, VISUALIZATION, AND TRACING OF COMPLEX MULTI-DIMENSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS AMONG OBJECTS | September 2011 | May 2015 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13134098 | In-vehicle input system | May 2011 | October 2016 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12827763 | CHAPTER NAVIGATION USER INTERFACE | June 2010 | February 2016 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11952079 | DYNAMIC UPDATE OF A USER INTERFACE BASED ON COLLECTED USER INTERACTIONS | December 2007 | October 2014 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner POSIGIAN, DAVID S..
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.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner POSIGIAN, DAVID S. works in Art Unit 3723 and has examined 25 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 52.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.
Examiner POSIGIAN, DAVID S.'s allowance rate of 52.0% 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 POSIGIAN, DAVID S. receive 2.64 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 89% 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 POSIGIAN, DAVID S. is 34 months. This places the examiner in the 25% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +63.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by POSIGIAN, DAVID S.. This interview benefit is in the 98% 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.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 19.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 12% 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 1% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 150.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 99% 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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 38% 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 39% 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.