Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18421887 | Coupled Magnetic System with Double-Adhesive for Eyelash Application | January 2024 | October 2025 | Abandon | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18039962 | PIPE PIGGING SYSTEM FOR CLEANING AND CONTROLLING SPEED OF PIG | June 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18033852 | AUTONOMOUS TRAVEL PATH PLANNING METHOD | April 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18135731 | CORDLESS VACUUM CLEANER IN WHICH CLEANER BODY AND BRUSH DEVICE ARE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE | April 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18246103 | ARTICLES, METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS COMPRISING POLYMERIZABLE DICARBONYL POLYMERS | March 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 31 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17799279 | SURGICAL INSTRUMENT UNIT, FORCE DETECTION DEVICE, AND SURGERY SUPPORT SYSTEM | August 2022 | August 2025 | Allow | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17875771 | STABILIZING WIRES FOR MEDICAL DEVICE | July 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17839414 | DENTAL RETRACTOR | June 2022 | February 2024 | Abandon | 20 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17831444 | HAIRPIECE WITH IDENTICAL FRONT AND BACK APPEARANCES | June 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 40 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17723208 | Hair Treatment System | April 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 39 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17543131 | SCAN BODIES FOR DIGITAL IMPRESSIONS AND SYSTEMS, INDICIA, AND METHODS OF USING SCAN BODIES | December 2021 | August 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16819485 | Using Low Intensity Light Energy To Effect/Alter Tooth Stains | March 2020 | October 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16396858 | ADAPTIVE HAIR CLIP | April 2019 | July 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16390056 | HAIR STYLING DEVICE | April 2019 | August 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12342081 | DISPOSABLE DENTAL PROPHYLAXIS INSTRUMENT CAPABLE OF DISCHARGING DENTIFRICE MATERIAL | December 2008 | June 2010 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12006773 | ORTHODONTIC ANCHOR | January 2008 | June 2010 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11866532 | ACTIVATING BRUSH TIP APPLICATORS FOR DENTAL BLEACHING COMPOSITIONS | October 2007 | March 2010 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11886152 | ORTHODONTICS ASSISTING SYSTEM AND INDEX MEMBER AND ARRANGING DEVICE FOR USE THEREIN | September 2007 | March 2010 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11792040 | DEVICE, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DENTAL TREATMENT | June 2007 | February 2010 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11707291 | CAPTURE OF A PLANNED VERTICAL DIMENSION OF OCCLUSION TO FACILITATE SIMULTANEOUS RESTORATION OF BOTH MAXILLARY AND MANDIBULAR ARCHES USING IMPLANTS | February 2007 | June 2010 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ROSEN, ERIC J.
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 ROSEN, ERIC J works in Art Unit 3772 and has examined 10 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 60.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 40 months.
Examiner ROSEN, ERIC J's allowance rate of 60.0% places them in the 20% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by ROSEN, ERIC J receive 2.90 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 ROSEN, ERIC J is 40 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 -38.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ROSEN, ERIC J. This interview benefit is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. Note: Interviews show limited statistical benefit with this examiner compared to others, though they may still be valuable for clarifying issues.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 8.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 4% 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 18.2% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 21% 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.
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 60.0% of allowed cases (in the 100% 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 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.