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 |
| 11315476 | FRAME SEAL FOR A SOLID FUEL DISTRIBUTOR | December 2005 | April 2010 | Allow | 52 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 10539887 | DRYING-STORING APPARATUS FOR POWDERED OR GRANULAR MATERIAL AND FEEDING SYSTEM FOR POWDERED OR GRANULAR MATERIAL | December 2005 | October 2009 | Allow | 52 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11296039 | HEAT RECOVERY AND VENTILATION SYSTEM FOR DRYERS | December 2005 | April 2009 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11260419 | FEEDING SYSTEM FOR PLASMA MELTING-FURNACE | October 2005 | October 2009 | Allow | 48 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 10517023 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TREATMENT OF WASTE | October 2005 | July 2009 | Allow | 55 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 11216861 | COMPUTER TO PLATE COLOR SENSOR AND DRYING/CURING SYSTEM AND METHOD | August 2005 | December 2009 | Allow | 51 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 10510431 | ION GENERATING DEVICE | July 2005 | May 2008 | Abandon | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11147877 | STEAM BLOWER BOX | June 2005 | October 2008 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11131731 | PRESSURE ACTIVATED TRAP PRIMER AND WATER HAMMER COMBINATION | May 2005 | February 2009 | Allow | 45 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11117519 | BOILER GAS FLOW DISTRIBUTION FIN APPARATUS AND METHOD | April 2005 | October 2009 | Allow | 54 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 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, 66.7% 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 31 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 67.7%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.
Examiner RINEHART, KENNETH's allowance rate of 67.7% places them in the 29% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by RINEHART, KENNETH receive 2.81 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 82% 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 42 months. This places the examiner in the 20% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +8.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by RINEHART, KENNETH. This interview benefit is in the 39% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 17.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 15% 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 45.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 70% 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, 100.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 77% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 55.6% of appeals filed. This is in the 28% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 20.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 62.5% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 67% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 3.2% of allowed cases (in the 80% 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 19.0% of allowed cases (in the 93% 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.