Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16779768 | GAS TURBINE ENGINE FORWARD BEARING COMPARTMENT ARCHITECTURE | February 2020 | October 2020 | Allow | 8 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16742074 | SHAFT MONITORING SYSTEM | January 2020 | September 2020 | Abandon | 8 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16708616 | CONNECTOR SYSTEM | December 2019 | September 2020 | Abandon | 9 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16544996 | GAS TURBINE ENGINE | August 2019 | September 2020 | Abandon | 12 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16539020 | WINDAGE SHIELD | August 2019 | September 2020 | Abandon | 13 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16530358 | PUMPS FOR TRANSFERRING FLUIDS INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION | August 2019 | June 2022 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16521726 | FAN BLADE REMOVAL METHOD AND TOOLING | July 2019 | August 2020 | Abandon | 13 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16459196 | ROTOR OF A FLUID FLOW MACHINE | July 2019 | June 2020 | Abandon | 11 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16148299 | BEARING ARRANGEMENT FOR A WIND TURBINE, WIND TURBINE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A WIND TURBINE | October 2018 | June 2022 | Abandon | 45 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 15762687 | TURBINE BLADE HAVING A GROOVE IN THE CROWN BASE | March 2018 | August 2020 | Abandon | 29 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15905509 | Turbocharger | February 2018 | March 2022 | Abandon | 49 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15845720 | SPLIT YOKE IN A FOLDING ROTOR BLADE ASSEMBLY | December 2017 | July 2022 | Abandon | 55 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15839971 | CENTRIFUGAL COMPRESSOR AND TURBOCHARGER | December 2017 | August 2020 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15812667 | INLET GUIDE WHEEL FOR A TURBO ENGINE | November 2017 | March 2020 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15784341 | Polymer Compressor Wheel with Co-Molded Bore Insert | October 2017 | March 2020 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15642012 | Adjustable Bed Frame Rail Riser Assemblies | July 2017 | April 2018 | Allow | 9 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 15625291 | INLET PRE-SWIRL GAS TURBINE ENGINE | June 2017 | December 2020 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15349932 | BED FRAME ASSEMBLY | November 2016 | April 2018 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15349992 | Extensible Z Accessorized Travel Head Rest | November 2016 | April 2018 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15344157 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING FLUID TO A BEARING DAMPER | November 2016 | October 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15130042 | Bolt On Seal Ring | April 2016 | October 2020 | Abandon | 54 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15041142 | SUPPORT PILLOW | February 2016 | March 2018 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14799937 | ROLL-IN PUSH COT | July 2015 | February 2018 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14619682 | Pillowcase And Neck Pillow System | February 2015 | January 2018 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14410796 | CENTRIFUGAL MULTI-BLADE BLOWER | December 2014 | July 2018 | Abandon | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13196832 | CODE CHANGING MECHANISM FOR A MECHANICAL COMBINATION LOCK | August 2011 | April 2012 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13177047 | CARD LOCK AND KEY LOCK ASSEMBLY | July 2011 | December 2011 | Allow | 5 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12967379 | BICYCLE LOCK SET CONNECTED WITH BICYCLE FRAME | December 2010 | January 2012 | Abandon | 14 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12963113 | CONVERTIBLE WHEELCHAIR | December 2010 | March 2013 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12953760 | MICROPOWER PASSIVE ELECTRONIC LOCK CYLINDER | November 2010 | June 2012 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12881843 | APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR TRANSFERRING A PATIENT | September 2010 | October 2013 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 2 | Yes | No |
| 12880613 | CUSHIONING DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING | September 2010 | August 2013 | Allow | 35 | 0 | 2 | Yes | No |
| 12921678 | LOCK | September 2010 | July 2012 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12875258 | DUAL CUSTODY PRIVACY PADLOCK | September 2010 | January 2012 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12772181 | INFANT HEAD CRADLE WITH CONTROLLED HEAD MOVEMENT | May 2010 | September 2013 | Allow | 41 | 0 | 2 | Yes | No |
| 12759325 | THEFT DETERRENT ENCLOSURE | April 2010 | June 2012 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12758046 | Pedestal End For Patients Bed | April 2010 | June 2013 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12449714 | METHOD OF MANUFACTRING THE STUFFING OF PILLOW USING SEEDS OF DRUPES AND PILLOW FILLED WITH THE STUFFING MANUFACTURED THEREBY | March 2010 | June 2012 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12615535 | STEPPED-EDGE AND SIDE-SUPPORT MEMBERS, ASSEMBLIES, SYSTEMS, AND RELATED METHODS, PARTICULARLY FOR BEDDING AND SEATING | November 2009 | July 2013 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11920329 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR QUARANTINING PALLETISED GOODS AND PREVENTING PALLET MOVEMENT | December 2008 | December 2011 | Allow | 49 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12249419 | DOOR LOCK WITH AN IMPROVED STRUCTURE | October 2008 | November 2011 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12076760 | PANELS, OVERLAYS, AND INSERTS FOR FURNITURE ASSEMBLIES, AND RELATED METHODS | March 2008 | September 2013 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11826226 | Internal valve and methods of use for inflatable objects | July 2007 | November 2013 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 1 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SOSNOWSKI, DAVID E.
With a 50.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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 show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner SOSNOWSKI, DAVID E works in Art Unit 3745 and has examined 43 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 55.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 29 months.
Examiner SOSNOWSKI, DAVID E's allowance rate of 55.8% 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 SOSNOWSKI, DAVID E receive 1.51 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 24% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by SOSNOWSKI, DAVID E is 29 months. This places the examiner in the 65% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +34.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SOSNOWSKI, DAVID E. This interview benefit is in the 82% 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, 26.9% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 49% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
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 5% 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, 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 33.3% of appeals filed. This is in the 6% 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, 40.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 29% 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 8.3% of allowed cases (in the 88% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.
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.