Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18723666 | ELECTRIC COMPRESSOR | June 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17893189 | MULTI-PASS CATALYTIC CONVERTER | August 2022 | September 2023 | Abandon | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17575708 | REFRIGERANT COMPRESSOR WITH IMPELLER HAVING DUAL SPLITTER BLADE ARRANGEMENT | January 2022 | September 2023 | Abandon | 20 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17275811 | RELIEF VALVE FOR A TURBOCHARGER AND PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING A RELIEF VALVE | March 2021 | August 2023 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17185525 | BOOSTED ENGINE | February 2021 | August 2022 | Abandon | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17026143 | DISK SPRING FOR AN EXHAUST GAS TURBOCHARGER | September 2020 | May 2022 | Abandon | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16911365 | Turbocharger Turbine Rotor and Turbocharger | June 2020 | March 2022 | Abandon | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16894775 | ROTARY VANE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE | June 2020 | March 2022 | Abandon | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15643987 | SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION STEADY STATE AMMONIA SLIP AND REDUCTANT BREAKTHROUGH DETECTION | July 2017 | May 2020 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15528158 | VARIABLE GEOMETRY TURBOCHARGER TURBINE | May 2017 | January 2021 | Abandon | 44 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12431640 | PHOTOELECTRIC CONVERTING FILM STACK TYPE SOLID-STATE IMAGE PICKUP DEVICE, AND METHOD OF PRODUCING THE SAME | April 2009 | August 2010 | Allow | 16 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12244009 | METHOD OF FABRICATING A TRENCH DMOS (DOUBLE DIFFUSED MOS) TRANSISTOR | October 2008 | July 2010 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12243280 | VERTICAL POWER SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE WITH HIGH BREAKDOWN VOLTAGE CORRESPONDING TO EDGE TERMINATION AND DEVICE REGIONS | October 2008 | May 2010 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12146500 | STRUCTURES, FABRICATION METHODS, AND DESIGN STRUCTURES FOR MULTIPLE BIT FLASH MEMORY CELLS | June 2008 | April 2010 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 11573509 | ANTIFERROMAGNETIC HALF-METALLIC SEMICONDUCTOR AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR | February 2007 | April 2010 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11566579 | PLANAR SUBSTRATE WITH SELECTED SEMICONDUCTOR CRYSTAL ORIENTATIONS FORMED BY LOCALIZED AMORPHIZATION AND RECRYSTALLIZATION OF STACKED TEMPLATE LAYERS | December 2006 | April 2010 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11395129 | BIPOLAR TRANSISTOR AND RADIO FREQUENCY AMPLIFIER CIRCUIT | April 2006 | February 2011 | Allow | 59 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner LAURENZI, MARK A works in Art Unit 3746 and has examined 16 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 43.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 21 months.
Examiner LAURENZI, MARK A's allowance rate of 43.8% places them in the 5% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by LAURENZI, MARK A receive 1.56 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 40% 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 LAURENZI, MARK A is 21 months. This places the examiner in the 87% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +36.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LAURENZI, MARK A. This interview benefit is in the 87% 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, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 29% 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 1% 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 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 18.8% of allowed cases (in the 99% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 40% 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.