Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16448668 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR NAVIGATION USING BOUNDING AREAS | June 2019 | May 2020 | Allow | 11 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16083659 | SYSTEM FOR COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MOBILE BODIES, MOBILE BODY TRANSMISSION CONTROL DEVICE, AND MOBILE BODY RECEIVING CONTROL DEVICE | September 2018 | May 2020 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15761901 | CONTROL APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD, AND PROGRAM | March 2018 | June 2020 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15896646 | AERIAL ROBOTICS NETWORK MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE | February 2018 | June 2020 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15749417 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SYNCING AN EMBEDDED SYSTEM WITH PLURALITY OF DEVICES | January 2018 | May 2020 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15878934 | CONTEXT-BASED TASK DISPLAY ON A MAP | January 2018 | April 2020 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15867348 | METHODS AND APPARATUS TO FACILITATE MITIGATION OF VEHICLE TRAPPING ON RAILROAD CROSSINGS | January 2018 | May 2020 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15852297 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETECTING MOVEMENT OF AN OCCUPANT SEATED IN A VEHICLE | December 2017 | February 2020 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15847226 | DRIVING ASSISTANCE DEVICE | December 2017 | April 2020 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15844713 | AUTOMATIC AND PERSONALIZED CONTROL OF DRIVER ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS | December 2017 | April 2020 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15843223 | USING PREDICTION MODELS FOR SCENE DIFFICULTY IN VEHICLE ROUTING | December 2017 | February 2020 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15825583 | WORK SITE MONITORING SYSTEM AND METHOD | November 2017 | February 2020 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15726330 | OBJECT AVOIDANCE METHODS FOR AUTOMATED AERIAL VEHICLES | October 2017 | April 2020 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15368101 | FORCE SENSING HORN SYSTEM | December 2016 | February 2020 | Allow | 39 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14946130 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF DETERMINING OCCUPANT LOCATION USING CONNECTED DEVICES | November 2015 | May 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13916687 | OFFLINE CONFIGURATION OF VEHICLE INFOTAINMENT SYSTEM | June 2013 | September 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13821828 | VEHICLE TRAVEL CONTROL DEVICE | March 2013 | July 2015 | Allow | 28 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13710950 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR STREAMLINED REMOTE TELEMATICS AUTHORIZATION | December 2012 | October 2014 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13535227 | NAVIGATION SYSTEM EFFICIENTLY UTILIZES POWER BY PROVIDING INSTRUCTIONS TO THE DRIVER FOR ONLY THE DRIVER SELECTED PORTION(S) OF ROUTE | June 2012 | March 2015 | Allow | 33 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13419493 | ANTILOCK BRAKING SYSTEM WITH DIRECTIONAL CONTROL | March 2012 | August 2015 | Allow | 41 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner HEINLE, COURTNEY D.
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 HEINLE, COURTNEY D works in Art Unit 3745 and has examined 20 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 90.0%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 28 months.
Examiner HEINLE, COURTNEY D's allowance rate of 90.0% places them in the 73% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by HEINLE, COURTNEY D receive 2.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 48% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by HEINLE, COURTNEY D is 28 months. This places the examiner in the 69% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +20.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HEINLE, COURTNEY D. This interview benefit is in the 62% 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, 33.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 74% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 42.9% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 67% 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.
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, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 46% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 43% 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.