Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16976535 | COMBINED COOLING, HEATING AND POWER SYSTEM | November 2020 | November 2022 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17071557 | Gas Turbine Combuster | October 2020 | April 2024 | Abandon | 42 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17035954 | Gas Turbine Combustor | September 2020 | September 2023 | Abandon | 35 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 17041865 | SINGLE-SHAFT COMBINED CYCLE PLANT, TESTING METHOD FOR SINGLE-SHAFT COMBINED CYCLE PLANT, AND CONTROL DEVICE FOR SINGLE-SHAFT COMBINED CYCLE PLANT | September 2020 | December 2022 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16880679 | SWIRLER WITH FUEL MANIFOLD, AND COMBUSTOR AND GAS TURBINE INCLUDING THE SAME | May 2020 | December 2023 | Allow | 43 | 5 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 16734925 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR POWER TRANSFER IN CRYOGENIC FUEL APPLICATIONS | January 2020 | May 2022 | Allow | 28 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16576099 | Flow Passages Formed in a Flame Tube for a Gas Turbine Combustor Chamber | September 2019 | December 2022 | Allow | 39 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16552151 | TRAPPED VORTEX COMBUSTOR | August 2019 | March 2023 | Abandon | 43 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16412535 | OIL RECOVERY SYSTEM | May 2019 | August 2022 | Abandon | 39 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner LIU, JINGCHEN.
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, 100.0% 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.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner LIU, JINGCHEN works in Art Unit 3741 and has examined 9 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 55.6%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 39 months.
Examiner LIU, JINGCHEN's allowance rate of 55.6% places them in the 18% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by LIU, JINGCHEN receive 2.11 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 53% 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 LIU, JINGCHEN is 39 months. This places the examiner in the 27% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +83.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LIU, JINGCHEN. This interview benefit is in the 99% 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, 20.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 24% 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 40.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 62% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 22% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 98% 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 frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
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.