Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16314032 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF OPTIMIZED PUMP SPEED CONTROL TO REDUCE CAVITATION, PULSATION AND LOAD FLUCTUATION | December 2018 | March 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16071781 | VACUUM PUMP, AND FLEXIBLE COVER AND ROTOR USED IN VACUUM PUMP | July 2018 | January 2025 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | No | No |
| 15101842 | COMPRESSOR SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OPERATING THE COMPRESSOR SYSTEM IN DEPENDENCE ON THE CURRENT SITUATION OF THE RAIL VEHICLE | June 2016 | April 2019 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14909469 | CENTRIFUGAL FAN HAVING COMBINED SEALING AND VIBRATION ISOLATION | February 2016 | June 2019 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14952296 | PUMP AND METHOD FOR MIXED FLOW BLOOD PUMPING | November 2015 | March 2020 | Allow | 52 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14693716 | AIR SUPPLY DEVICE AND RELATED METHODS OF MANUFACTURE | April 2015 | February 2016 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14136284 | CONTROL SYSTEM FOR A FAN | December 2013 | February 2019 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13775806 | ACTIVE TURBINE OR COMPRESSOR TIP CLEARANCE CONTROL | February 2013 | November 2016 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13678067 | DOVE-TAIL CLAMP | November 2012 | December 2015 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13627323 | Pump | September 2012 | June 2016 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 13457518 | MILK PUMP DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DISPLACING AN AMOUNTOF MILK | April 2012 | July 2018 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13387412 | GEAR PUMP | March 2012 | July 2015 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13411778 | SAFETY ARRANGEMENT FOR AN INTEGRATED HEATER, PUMP, AND MOTOR FOR AN APPLIANCE | March 2012 | February 2016 | Allow | 48 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13370527 | CONTROL DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD OF COMPRESSOR | February 2012 | May 2015 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13355345 | AIR PUMP STRUCTURE | January 2012 | June 2015 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13302558 | Differential pressure control valve and variable displacement compressor having the differential pressure control valve | November 2011 | June 2015 | Allow | 42 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13208765 | PUMPING SYSTEM AND METHOD | August 2011 | August 2020 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13185433 | SPEED CONTROL FOR DIAPHRAGM PUMP | July 2011 | September 2014 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13165829 | BLOWER FAN AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME | June 2011 | August 2013 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13013602 | Plunger Pump for Fabricating Soft Capsules | January 2011 | October 2013 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12996261 | PNEUMATIC EVACUATION PUMP | December 2010 | July 2015 | Allow | 56 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12881512 | PUMPING DEVICE FOR FLUIDS LOCATED AT THE BOTTOM OF A DRILLED WELL | September 2010 | May 2014 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12739031 | PUMP, PUMP ARRANGEMENT AND PUMP MODULE | June 2010 | August 2015 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner NICHOLS, CHARLES W.
With a 50.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. 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, 40.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.
✓ 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 NICHOLS, CHARLES W works in Art Unit 3783 and has examined 23 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 95.7%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 44 months.
Examiner NICHOLS, CHARLES W's allowance rate of 95.7% places them in the 85% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by NICHOLS, CHARLES W receive 3.00 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 NICHOLS, CHARLES W is 44 months. This places the examiner in the 16% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -5.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by NICHOLS, CHARLES W. This interview benefit is in the 6% 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, 28.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 55% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 23.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 33% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 66.7% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 59% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. If you have strong arguments, a PAC request may result in favorable reconsideration.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 52% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 25.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows above-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. The mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) provides an opportunity for reconsideration.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 7% 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 46% 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 51% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions more often than average when claims are allowable but formal matters remain (MPEP § 714.14).
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.