Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18695926 | A CONNECTOR PIECE AND A METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A CONNECTOR PIECE FOR VENTILATION DUCTS RESISTING HIGH TEMPERATURES | March 2024 | March 2025 | Abandon | 12 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 18536737 | MULTILAYER COMPOSITE PIPE AND PIPE ASSEMBLIES INCLUDING REFLECTIVE INSULATION | December 2023 | January 2025 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 18311781 | APPARATUS, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSULATED CONDUCTING OF FLUIDS | May 2023 | May 2024 | Abandon | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18118548 | PIPE REINFORCEMENT CAP FOR SEAT BELT | March 2023 | April 2024 | Abandon | 13 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17885793 | CORD TANGLE PREVENTION DEVICE | August 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17703413 | EASILY POLYMERIZABLE SUBSTANCE HANDLING DEVICE | March 2022 | January 2025 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17546101 | Vacuum Insulated Structure With End Fitting And Method Of Making Same | December 2021 | May 2024 | Abandon | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17612819 | TUBE FITTING AND TUBE FITTING SET | November 2021 | May 2024 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17312633 | SELF-CONTAINED PORTABLE DEVICE FOR FILLING CYLINDERS WITH HIGH-PRESSURE HYDROGEN | June 2021 | November 2022 | Abandon | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17336890 | TRAP APPARATUS AND SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS | June 2021 | May 2024 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17051503 | FLUID CONDUIT AND METHOD OF MAKING SAME | October 2020 | May 2024 | Abandon | 42 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16875341 | MOBILE GASEOUS AND LIQUID HYDROGEN REFUELING APPARATUS | May 2020 | November 2022 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16761122 | MACHINE AND METHOD FOR CHARGING CULINARY CREAM WHIPPERS | May 2020 | January 2023 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16838251 | RAPID-CONNECT COUPLER AND RECEPTACLE HAVING ANTI-ROTATION FEATURE | April 2020 | May 2022 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16323994 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DETECTING AN AMOUNT OF GAS IN A CALIBRATION-CAPABLE MANNER | February 2019 | November 2022 | Abandon | 45 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 14647584 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRANSPORTING VISCOUS MATERIAL | May 2015 | February 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 11 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11784424 | PRESSURE ACTIVATED TRAP PRIMER AND WATER HAMMER COMBINATION | April 2007 | September 2010 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11543446 | STARVED AIR INCLINED HEARTH COMBUSTOR | October 2006 | July 2009 | Allow | 34 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 11383245 | APPARATUS FOR REDUCING NOX EMISSIONS IN FURNACES THROUGH THE CONCENTRATION OF SOLID FUEL AS COMPARED TO AIR | May 2006 | November 2008 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11402421 | HEAT PUMP CLOTHES DRYER | April 2006 | October 2009 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 11307389 | AGRICULTURAL DRYING APPARATUS AND METHODS | February 2006 | November 2008 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11338894 | HAIR DRYER WITH STATIC ATOMIZING DEVICE | January 2006 | July 2009 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10962534 | CLEANING DEVICE, CLEANING TOOL AND METHOD OF USING THE CLEANING DEVICE | October 2004 | March 2011 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 10898637 | Method and an apparatus for manufacturing a three-dimensional surface structure web | July 2004 | March 2014 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 2 | Yes | Yes |
| 10721179 | DRYER | November 2003 | May 2005 | Allow | 18 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10410118 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR COMBUSTION | April 2003 | September 2009 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10390074 | CONDITIONING APPARATUS | March 2003 | June 2009 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner RINEHART, KENNETH.
With a 75.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. 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, 60.0% 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 RINEHART, KENNETH works in Art Unit 3753 and has examined 26 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 53.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.
Examiner RINEHART, KENNETH's allowance rate of 53.8% places them in the 9% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by RINEHART, KENNETH receive 2.46 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 84% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues more office actions than most examiners, which may indicate thorough examination or difficulty in reaching agreement with applicants.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by RINEHART, KENNETH is 34 months. This places the examiner in the 25% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +25.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by RINEHART, KENNETH. This interview benefit is in the 75% 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, 11.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 3% 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 54% 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 20% 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 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 16% 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, 25.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 16% 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 40% 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 14.3% of allowed cases (in the 91% 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.