Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17098358 | CUP-SHAPED CONTAINER | November 2020 | April 2022 | Abandon | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17063408 | PEN AND PENCIL CONTAINER | October 2020 | April 2022 | Abandon | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17001111 | INSULATED FOOD AND BEVERAGE CONTAINER | August 2020 | March 2023 | Abandon | 30 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16827524 | ON PATIENT SURGICAL PROCEDURAL INSTRUMENT TRAY | March 2020 | July 2022 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16704840 | PORTABLE DISGUISABLE CONTAINER | December 2019 | November 2021 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16702038 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR NESTED CARTRIDGE | December 2019 | August 2022 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16617344 | SYNTHETIC RESIN CONTAINER | November 2019 | June 2022 | Abandon | 31 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16609956 | Thread Joining Mechanism | October 2019 | March 2022 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16666345 | GIFT WRAP ORGANIZER | October 2019 | November 2021 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16491983 | CONTAINER | September 2019 | May 2022 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16561986 | GUN TRANSPORT SYSTEM FOR UTILITY VEHICLE | September 2019 | September 2021 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16451945 | PACKAGE FOR DRILLS, A METHOD AND AN ARRANGEMENT THEREFORE | June 2019 | October 2023 | Abandon | 51 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16463539 | LID FOR SEALING ON CONTAINERS OF VARIABLE INNER WALL ANGLE | May 2019 | March 2022 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16391809 | RETRACTABLE KEY CASE | April 2019 | April 2022 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16319720 | WASTE COLLECTION DEVICE INTENDED TO RECEIVE A BAG MADE FROM PLASTIC MATERIAL | January 2019 | April 2022 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16314570 | PRESSURE VESSEL WITH A TAPE-BASED REINFORCEMENT STRUCTURE | December 2018 | March 2022 | Abandon | 39 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16136310 | FUEL CAP | September 2018 | April 2020 | Abandon | 19 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16131674 | WATER DAMAGE PREVENTION SYSTEM | September 2018 | December 2022 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16100954 | METHOD OF FABRICATING SPACE SATELLITE TANK COMPONENTS UTILIZING ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING AND SPIN FORMING | August 2018 | April 2023 | Abandon | 56 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 16027144 | PROTECTING COVER | July 2018 | August 2022 | Abandon | 49 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15918734 | BALLASTED, NEUTRALLY BOUYANT FLOATING BEVERAGE-CONTAINER HOLDER WHICH PROVIDES FLOATATION, INSULATION AND STABILITY TO A BEVERAGE CONTAINER IN WATER | March 2018 | April 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 15907821 | Protective Cases for Portable Electronic Devices | February 2018 | April 2020 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15743194 | PRESSURE TANK ARRANGEMENT FOR STORING AND DISCHARGING COMPRESSED LIQUID FUELS | January 2018 | December 2019 | Abandon | 23 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 15616483 | CHILD RESISTANT AND SENIOR FRIENDLY CAN LID | June 2017 | November 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15472313 | TOOL HOLDER ASSEMBLY | March 2017 | December 2019 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 15449823 | COOKWARE ASSEMBLY WITH A SECURABLE LID FOR BAKEWARE | March 2017 | March 2020 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15413344 | Modular Palette Grip with Tablet Module | January 2017 | December 2019 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15108834 | LOCKABLE PACKAGING | June 2016 | November 2019 | Abandon | 41 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 15024710 | AUTOMOBILE FUEL TANK | March 2016 | September 2019 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14975154 | Foldable Shipping and Display Box | December 2015 | March 2020 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14664020 | HUMIDITY-STABLE PACKAGE OF DISPOSABLE ABSORBENT ARTICLES WITH WETNESS INDICATORS | March 2015 | August 2022 | Allow | 60 | 16 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 14304103 | LABEL SYSTEM FOR PHARMACEUTICAL CONTAINERS | June 2014 | September 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13964090 | PARTITIONED FOOD PACKAGE | August 2013 | February 2021 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 13411136 | FUEL FILLER PIPE HAVING FORMED TRIGGER POINT | March 2012 | March 2020 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 13172386 | FLUID CONTAINER | June 2011 | December 2019 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11353482 | CONTAINER ASSEMBLY AND PRESSURE-RESPONSIVE PENETRABLE CAP FOR THE SAME | February 2006 | January 2012 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner STASHICK, ANTHONY D.
With a 25.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is below the USPTO average, indicating that appeals face more challenges here than typical.
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, 11.1% 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 STASHICK, ANTHONY D works in Art Unit 3735 and has examined 36 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 13.9%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 37 months.
Examiner STASHICK, ANTHONY D's allowance rate of 13.9% places them in the 2% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by STASHICK, ANTHONY D receive 2.61 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 73% 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 STASHICK, ANTHONY D is 37 months. This places the examiner in the 34% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +16.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by STASHICK, ANTHONY D. This interview benefit is in the 57% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 2.8% 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 15.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 19% 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 request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 114.3% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 81% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 60.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 37% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 66.7% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.
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 49% 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.