USPTO Examiner EISEMAN ADAM JARED - Art Unit 3791

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18428514Transepidermal Water Loss Measurement DeviceJanuary 2024February 2026Allow2510NoNo
18076185Method and Device for Diagnosing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury SusceptibilityDecember 2022February 2026Allow3910YesNo
17795235METHOD FOR SEPARATING MULTIPLE SLICES OF WORKPIECES BY MEANS OF A WIRE SAW DURING A SEQUENCE OF SEPARATION PROCESSESJuly 2022November 2025Allow3910NoNo
17434547MEASUREMENT UNIT AND MONITORING SYSTEM FOR MONITORING INDICATOR OF PARKINSON'S DISEASE IN PERSONAugust 2021December 2025Allow5130YesNo
15841358USER CONDITION EVALUATION SYSTEM THROUGH TOUCH SCREEN DEVICE USAGE PATTERN CHANGEDecember 2017February 2019Abandon1420NoNo
15708322USER CONDITION EVALUATION SYSTEM THROUGH TOUCH SCREEN DEVICE USAGE PATTERN CHANGESeptember 2017January 2019Allow1611YesNo
15389516VISION AND COGNITION TESTING AND/OR TRAINING UNDER STRESS CONDITIONSDecember 2016August 2018Allow2010NoNo
15357054STRAIN MONITORING SYSTEM AND APPARATUSNovember 2016May 2019Abandon3011NoNo
15345245OPTICAL PRESSURE MEASUREMENTNovember 2016August 2018Allow2210NoNo
15338747CPR CHEST COMPRESSION MONITOR WITH REFERENCE SENSOROctober 2016August 2018Allow2110NoNo
15299808SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONSCIOUS SENSORY FEEDBACKOctober 2016October 2018Allow2311NoNo
15262974DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR RESHAPING A HEART VALVE ANNULUS, INCLUDING THE USE OF MAGNETIC TOOLSSeptember 2016August 2018Allow2310NoNo
15240555MONITORING SYSTEMAugust 2016January 2019Allow2931YesNo
15195847Tissue Retractor OximeterJune 2016August 2018Allow2610NoNo
15151909CORE BODY TEMPERATURE SYSTEMMay 2016June 2019Abandon3721NoNo
15015941DEFORMITY CORRECTION USING NEURAL INTEGRITY MONITORINGFebruary 2016February 2019Allow3610NoNo
14860370Implantable Pressure Sensors for Telemetric Measurements through Bodily TissuesSeptember 2015October 2018Allow3720NoNo
14772884BIOIMPEDANCE CIRCUMFERENCE MEASUREMENTSeptember 2015November 2017Allow2730NoNo
14840488METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE RELATIVE SPATIAL CHANGE IN SUBSURFACE RESISTIVITIES ACROSS FREQUENCIES IN TISSUEAugust 2015February 2019Abandon4110NoNo
14835723METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETECTING PAIN OF USERSAugust 2015February 2019Abandon4201NoNo
14766374BELT FOR GUIDING THE ACTIVATION OF THE CORE MUSCLESAugust 2015December 2018Abandon4001NoNo
14813171CATHETER APPARATUS WITH TELESCOPING LUMEN CATHETERS AND ITS USE IN METHODS FOR TREATING VASCULATURESJuly 2015July 2018Allow3511YesNo
14813173METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PLACING A CATHETER WITHIN A VASCULATUREJuly 2015July 2018Allow3511YesNo
14788852MYOELECTRIC POTENTIAL MEASUREMENT DEVICE AND MYOELECTRIC POTENTIAL MEASUREMENT METHODJuly 2015March 2019Allow4411NoNo
14712431FLUID DIVERSION MECHANISM FOR BODILY-FLUID SAMPLINGMay 2015December 2018Allow4311NoNo
14711610FLOWOMETRY IN OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY FOR ANALYTE LEVEL ESTIMATIONMay 2015March 2019Allow4620NoNo
14662676FLUID DIVERSION MECHANISM FOR BODILY-FLUID SAMPLINGMarch 2015January 2019Allow4611NoNo
14622600SURGICAL ACCESSFebruary 2015September 2018Allow4311NoNo
14614506METHOD AND SYSTEM TO DETERMINE AN OPTIMAL TISSUE COMPRESSION TIME TO IMPLANT A SURGICAL ELEMENTFebruary 2015April 2019Allow5030YesNo
14525270IMPLANTABLE BIO-PRESSURE TRANSPONDEROctober 2014November 2018Allow4820YesNo
14498102SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PARENTERALLY PROCURING BODILY-FLUID SAMPLES WITH REDUCED CONTAMINATIONSeptember 2014January 2019Allow5121NoNo
14284634SYSTEM FOR IMPROVED TISSUE HANDLING AND IN LINE ANALYSIS OF THE TISSUEMay 2014May 2019Abandon6020NoNo
14285547SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING OXYGEN SATURATIONMay 2014December 2018Allow5410YesNo
14284915ELECTRODE LAYOUT FOR BLOOD TEST SENSOR STRIPMay 2014November 2018Allow5410NoNo
14261331AUDIOLOGIC TEST APPARATUS, SYSTEM AND RELATED METHODApril 2014June 2018Allow5041NoNo
14197837SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTION OF CANCER IN WOMENMarch 2014March 2019Abandon6021NoYes
14038839GRID AND ROTATABLE CUBE GUIDE LOCALIZATION FIXTURE FOR BIOPSY DEVICESeptember 2013August 2018Allow5810NoNo
13867632MONITORING SYSTEMApril 2013April 2019Abandon6011NoNo
13743016ORAL DEVICEJanuary 2013February 2019Allow6020YesNo
13691195BODY FAT MEASUREMENT DEVICENovember 2012December 2018Allow6020NoNo
13535620Anastomosis Leak Testing ApparatusJune 2012September 2018Allow6011NoNo
13486333DEVICE FOR DETECTING ELECTRICAL POTENTIALS OF THE FOREHEAD REGION OF A PATIENTJune 2012November 2018Abandon6040NoYes
13420490Ophthalmic Refractor and Method of Ophthalmic Refractor Signal AnalysisMarch 2012October 2018Allow6041NoNo
13342677Integrated Sensor for Analyzing Biological SamplesJanuary 2012October 2013Allow2210NoNo
13105726CATHETERMay 2011June 2019Abandon6040NoYes
13086453Sample capture in one step for test stripsApril 2011February 2019Abandon6041YesNo
12901774Systems For and Methods Of Assessing Urinary Flow Rate Via Sound AnalysisOctober 2010March 2013Allow3010NoNo
12761585ELASTIC HYSTERETIC PALPATORY TRAINING APPARATUSApril 2010March 2012Allow2310NoNo
12718006ELASTIC HYSTERETIC PALPATORY TRAINING METHODMarch 2010February 2012Allow2310NoNo
12675994BLOOD ANALYSIS DEVICE AND BLOOD ANALYSIS SYSTEM USING THE SAMEMarch 2010July 2013Allow4050YesNo
12302914IMPEDANCE MEASUREMENTSNovember 2009February 2014Allow6021YesNo
12383261POSTURAL INFORMATION SYSTEM AND METHOD INCLUDING CENTRAL DETERMINING OF SUBJECT ADVISORY INFORMATION BASED ON SUBJECT STATUS INFORMATION AND POSTURAL INFLUENCER STATUS INFORMATIONMarch 2009October 2018Abandon6061NoNo
12337872MULTI-ORIENTATION TARGETING SET FOR MRI BIOPSY DEVICEDecember 2008April 2013Allow5231YesNo
12214947Marker or filler forming fluidJune 2008January 2019Allow6061NoYes
12123145SYSTEMS FOR AND METHODS OF ASSESSING LOWER URINARY TRACT FUNCTION VIA SOUND ANALYSISMay 2008March 2010Allow2231YesNo
11826766METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A GUIDEWIRE WITH AN EXTRUSION JACKETJuly 2007May 2013Allow6021NoNo
10577428BONE-MARROW EXTRACTION AND/OR INJECTION DEVICE AND A SYSTEM INCLUDING SUCH A DEVICEAugust 2006November 2010Allow5530YesNo
11495510PLACENTAL BLOOD EXTRACTORJuly 2006December 2009Allow4030NoNo
11378850ELASTIC HYSTERETIC PALPATORY TRAINING APPARATUS AND METHOD OF USE THEREOFMarch 2006March 2010Allow4831NoNo
11322278APPARATUS FOR COLLECTING NANOPARTICLESJanuary 2006December 2008Allow3610NoNo
11299394METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OBTAINING ALIQUOT FROM LIQUID-BASED CYTOLOGICAL SAMPLEDecember 2005January 2010Allow4930NoYes
10632961BIOELECTRICAL IMPEDANCE MEASURING APPARATUSAugust 2003September 2008Allow6010NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner EISEMAN, ADAM JARED.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
4
Examiner Affirmed
3
(75.0%)
Examiner Reversed
1
(25.0%)
Reversal Percentile
41.9%
Lower than average

What This Means

With a 25.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is below the USPTO average, indicating that appeals face more challenges here than typical.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
8
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(12.5%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
7
(87.5%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
15.7%
Lower than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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, 12.5% 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.

Strategic Recommendations

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 EISEMAN, ADAM JARED - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner EISEMAN, ADAM JARED works in Art Unit 3791 and has examined 59 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 78.0%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 44 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner EISEMAN, ADAM JARED's allowance rate of 78.0% places them in the 45% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by EISEMAN, ADAM JARED receive 2.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 51% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by EISEMAN, ADAM JARED is 44 months. This places the examiner in the 15% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +20.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by EISEMAN, ADAM JARED. This interview benefit is in the 64% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 32.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 69% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 42.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 65% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

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 58% 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 33.3% of appeals filed. This is in the 5% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 50.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 33.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 21% 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 Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 5.1% of allowed cases (in the 86% 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 50% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may come directly without a separate action for formal matters.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.
  • Examiner cooperation: This examiner frequently makes examiner's amendments to place applications in condition for allowance. If you are close to allowance, the examiner may help finalize the claims.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.