Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17108604 | AUTOMATED PAPER CONE SHAPING AND ARRANGEMENT MACHINE | December 2020 | December 2023 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17069286 | Cable Bundle Taping Device | October 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16985976 | APPARATUS FOR THE MANUAL OR MACHINE PRODUCTION OF A TUBE-LIKE PACKAGING MATERIAL AND PACKING STATION | August 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16983910 | SMARTPHONE-CONTROLLED IMPLANTABLE NEURAL DEVICES FOR LONG-TERM WIRELESS DRUG DELIVERY AND LIGHT STIMULATION, AND OPERATING METHOD THEREOF | August 2020 | January 2025 | Abandon | 53 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16466050 | Dual mode power tool | June 2019 | January 2024 | Allow | 55 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16260888 | INSULATING PACKAGE | January 2019 | November 2023 | Allow | 58 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15001163 | BELT SORTING SYSTEM | January 2016 | April 2019 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14979599 | BAG PACKAGING MECHANISM FOR MUSHROOM CULTIVATION | December 2015 | February 2019 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14874327 | MUZZLE SUITABLE FOR HOLDING NAIL CLAMPS | October 2015 | September 2018 | Allow | 35 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 14818320 | Air Bag Machine | August 2015 | September 2018 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14672778 | DRILLING DEVICE AND FRICTION CLUTCH FOR A DRILLING DEVICE | March 2015 | November 2018 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 13485831 | MEDICINE DISPENSING APPARATUS | May 2012 | January 2019 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13388956 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR FORMING FLUTED FILTRATION MEDIA HAVING TAPERED FLUTES | April 2012 | March 2019 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 13328192 | WORK STATION FOR A PACKAGING MACHINE | December 2011 | January 2019 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner STINSON, CHELSEA E..
With a 100.0% 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, 50.0% 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 STINSON, CHELSEA E. works in Art Unit 3783 and has examined 14 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 92.9%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 44 months.
Examiner STINSON, CHELSEA E.'s allowance rate of 92.9% places them in the 79% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by STINSON, CHELSEA E. receive 2.21 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 57% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by STINSON, CHELSEA E. 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 +11.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by STINSON, CHELSEA E.. This interview benefit is in the 45% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 27.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 50% 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 5% 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 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 52% percentile among all examiners. 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.