Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18763247 | CONFIGURABLE, COMPACT, MULTI-VARIANT RECYCLABLE MATERIAL FRAGMENTATION APPARATUS AND METHOD | July 2024 | May 2025 | Abandon | 11 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18033537 | IMPROVEMENTS IN OR IN RELATION TO THE PREPARATION AND DELIVERY OF SUGAR CANE TO A SUGAR MILL | April 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 33 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 18167461 | Apparatus for destroying electronic data and providing selective storage | February 2023 | February 2026 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18019797 | ALLOY PLATE MATERIAL SUPPLYING DEVICE AND CAN FORMING DEVICE | February 2023 | October 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18084510 | ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE BUTT DISPOSAL DEVICE | December 2022 | August 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18001777 | APPARATUS FOR EXTRACTING TONER FROM TONER CARTRIDGES | December 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18010079 | A BEVERAGE CAPSULE RECYCLING ASSEMBLY | December 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18079601 | RADIAL PRESS | December 2022 | September 2025 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18063310 | RECYCLING OF LAMINATED GLASS | December 2022 | July 2025 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18062779 | Garlic Roller | December 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18062822 | Garlic Press | December 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18070262 | CAGE OPENING ASSISTANT | November 2022 | July 2025 | Abandon | 31 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17994271 | MANUFACTURING APPARATUS | November 2022 | September 2025 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17985176 | MASK DISPOSAL APPARATUS HAVING SERRATED TYPE CRUSHING STRUCTURE | November 2022 | July 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17983962 | ICE PROCESSING DEVICE AND APPARATUS | November 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17996376 | WASTE SEPARATOR APPARATUS | October 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18046063 | Pulverization Device | October 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 31 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17837980 | FORGING PROCESS FOR AN ALUMINUM ALLOY PART | June 2022 | May 2024 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17504246 | HYDRATED LIME WITH REDUCED RESISTIVITY AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURE | October 2021 | June 2024 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17386613 | STIRRING APPARATUS AND STIRRING METHOD | July 2021 | August 2024 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17418286 | A FORMING DIE FOR FORMING AN END OF A TUBE AND A METHOD FOR FORMING AN END OF A TUBE | June 2021 | June 2024 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17271581 | DUAL-PURPOSE GRINDER AND OPERATING METHOD THEREOF | February 2021 | May 2024 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17130010 | Multi-Functional Riveting Tool | December 2020 | June 2024 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17081372 | SHAPING APPARATUS AND SHAPING METHOD FOR SHAPING A WORKPIECE, AND COMPUTER-READABLE NON-TRANSITORY MEDIA ABLE TO PERFORM THE SHAPING METHOD | October 2020 | August 2024 | Abandon | 46 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16913719 | Rivet Feeding System | June 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 59 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11375880 | METHODS FOR FORMING AN ANASTOMOSIS OPENING IN A SIDE OF A BLOOD VESSEL | March 2006 | June 2011 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11207249 | DEFECT OCCLUSION APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND METHOD | August 2005 | August 2011 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner TEMPLETON, CHRISTOPHER L.
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, 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.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner TEMPLETON, CHRISTOPHER L works in Art Unit 3725 and has examined 9 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 22.2%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.
Examiner TEMPLETON, CHRISTOPHER L's allowance rate of 22.2% places them in the 3% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by TEMPLETON, CHRISTOPHER L receive 2.22 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 61% 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 TEMPLETON, CHRISTOPHER L is 42 months. This places the examiner in the 19% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +66.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by TEMPLETON, CHRISTOPHER L. 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, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 1% 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. 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, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 100% 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 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 46% 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.