Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18978859 | EXPANDING DEVICE AND METHOD OF USE THEREOF | December 2024 | July 2025 | Allow | 7 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18461561 | Prosthetic Heart Valve with Atrial Drain | September 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 30 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18095440 | LEAFLET ATTACHMENT CONFIGURATIONS TO THE FRAMES OF PROSTHETIC VALVES | January 2023 | August 2025 | Allow | 31 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17925295 | ASSEMBLIES INCLUDING A PRE-LOADED IMPLANT AND METHODS OF STERILIZING ASSEMBLIES | November 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 32 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17978826 | LEAFLET ATTACHMENT IN PROSTHETIC HEART VALVES USING BUCKLE COMMISSURE CLAMPS | November 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17913955 | STENT DELIVERY SYSTEM AND HANDLING DEVICE FOR A STENT DELIVERY SYSTEM | September 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 33 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17907061 | EXPANDABLE DEVICES | September 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17901602 | PROSTHETIC HEART VALVE LEAFLET COMMISSURE ASSEMBLIES AND METHODS | September 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 33 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17293460 | DECOUPLING TOOL SHAFT FROM CABLE DRIVE LOAD | May 2021 | January 2025 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17132144 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SUPPORTING A U-SHAPED PORTION OF AN ELONGATE FLEXIBLE ELEMENT RELATIVE TO A HUMAN BODY TISSUE | December 2020 | February 2024 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16949563 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TREATING ANEURYSMS | November 2020 | June 2022 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16447057 | TENACULUM HAVING A FINGER LOOP | June 2019 | April 2022 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16437824 | SUTURE CLIP AND APPLIER TOOL | June 2019 | October 2021 | Abandon | 29 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16428146 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REMOVING MATERIALS FROM THE PANCREAS USING AN ENDOSCOPIC SURGICAL TOOL | May 2019 | July 2021 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16351186 | TREATMENT OF VASCULAR LESIONS | March 2019 | February 2022 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 15949254 | FORCEPS KNIFE BLADE LOCKOUT MECHANISM | April 2018 | April 2021 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15730293 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IN SITU TISSUE EXPANSION | October 2017 | September 2021 | Abandon | 47 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15015736 | VALVE PROSTHESIS | February 2016 | September 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner HO, TAN-UYEN THI.
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 HO, TAN-UYEN THI works in Art Unit 3771 and has examined 10 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 40.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 36 months.
Examiner HO, TAN-UYEN THI's allowance rate of 40.0% places them in the 7% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by HO, TAN-UYEN THI receive 1.70 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 35% 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 HO, TAN-UYEN THI is 36 months. This places the examiner in the 37% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +66.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HO, TAN-UYEN THI. This interview benefit is in the 98% 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 39% 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 4% 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 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, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 93% 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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 45% 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 48% 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.