USPTO Examiner ROBERTSON JENNIFER MARY DEICHL - Art Unit 3791

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18634490EXERCISE EQUIPMENT WITH DYNAMIC ILLUMINATION OF SIMULATED ENVIRONMENTApril 2024September 2025Allow1701NoNo
18403908Octagonal punching bag arrangementJanuary 2024October 2025Allow2110NoNo
18569646WEIGHT SUPPORT DEVICE AND APPARATUSDecember 2023May 2025Allow1700NoNo
18533994EXERCISE APPARATUSDecember 2023December 2025Abandon2410NoNo
18053211EXERCISE BAR WITH DYNAMICALLY ROTATING HAND GRIPSNovember 2022July 2024Allow2020YesNo
17892904TREADMILLAugust 2022June 2024Allow2200NoNo
17424764BIOPSY TRACT SEALANT APPLICATOR DEVICE AND BIOPSY SYSTEMJuly 2021September 2025Allow5020YesNo
16237827BALANCE TRAINER EXERCISE DEVICEJanuary 2019June 2019Allow610NoNo
16113012SWINGABLE EXERCISE BIKEAugust 2018December 2019Allow1510NoNo
16055435BIKE TRAINER GUIDE APPARATUSAugust 2018May 2019Allow1010NoNo
16011391Barbell CollarJune 2018August 2018Allow200NoNo
15983521MOBILE ATHLETIC TRAINING TABLEMay 2018March 2020Allow2210YesNo
15957626FOOT-THERAPY AND TOE-ALIGNING DEVICEApril 2018February 2019Allow1020YesNo
15957791FOOT-THERAPY AND TOE-ALIGNING DEVICEApril 2018July 2019Allow1920NoNo
15920679HAND-FOOT COMPOSITE MOTION EXERCISE MACHINEMarch 2018October 2019Allow1900NoNo
15905921ARM EXTENSION EXERCISE APPARATUSFebruary 2018July 2019Allow1600NoNo
15884283Jump rope with quick-adjust handleJanuary 2018September 2019Allow2010NoNo
15837886GAIT ASSISTIVE DEVICEDecember 2017November 2019Allow2310NoNo
15809331PILATES EXERCISE SYSTEM AND METHOD OF USENovember 2017October 2019Allow2320YesNo
15802825YOGA APPARATUSNovember 2017April 2019Allow1800NoNo
15723743Wearable GymOctober 2017December 2018Allow1520YesNo
15652248JUMPING ROPE WITH WIRELESS SPEAKERSJuly 2017December 2018Allow1710NoNo
15542217ACTUATOR AND EXERCISE EQUIPMENT USING SAMEJuly 2017August 2019Allow2620NoNo
15494652Height adjustable combat training assembly and method of operationApril 2017November 2018Allow1910NoNo
15493053WEIGHT SYSTEMS FOR EXERCISE EQUIPMENTApril 2017September 2019Allow2910NoNo
15492606CORE EXERCISE MACHINEApril 2017October 2019Allow3030NoNo
15475019Sports Training System And MethodMarch 2017December 2018Allow2010NoNo
15389021SWIM TRAINING SYSTEM, SWIM DATA COMPUTATION METHOD USING THE SAME, AND SWIM TRAINING METHOD USING THE SAMEDecember 2016April 2019Allow2700NoNo
15376919Physical Therapy SystemDecember 2016October 2019Allow3420NoNo
15347733Apparatus and Method for upright drumming and exercisingNovember 2016October 2019Allow3511NoNo
15330739Knee flexion and extension therapy device and method of useOctober 2016September 2017Allow1110NoNo
15291532MULTI-JOINT EXERCISE MACHINEOctober 2016May 2019Allow3110YesNo
15213380EXERCISE APPARATUSJuly 2016October 2018Allow2711NoNo
15200978HIGH PERFORMANCE ROPE EXERCISE HANDLEJuly 2016April 2019Allow3320NoNo
15147455FREE WEIGHT EXERCISE SHOESMay 2016October 2018Allow3010NoNo
14771992FLUID ADAPTER AND FLUID COUPLINGSeptember 2015December 2018Allow3910NoNo
13462763MUILTI-FUNCTION EXERCISE BENCH WITH SWIVELABLE SEATBACK AND AT LEAST THREE PAIRS OF SYMMETRICALLY POSITIONED HANDLESMay 2012November 2019Allow6060YesYes
13324577BI-FUNCTIONAL INHALING DEVICEDecember 2011November 2013Allow2320YesNo
13305197MARTIAL ARTS TRAINING DEVICENovember 2011April 2014Allow2810NoNo
13292552BARBELL SYSTEMNovember 2011October 2013Allow2300NoNo
13199970TRAINING ASSEMBLYSeptember 2011December 2013Allow2711NoNo
13199148DOORFRAME SUSPENSION TYPE PARALLEL-BAR EXERCISING APPARATUSAugust 2011August 2013Allow2410NoNo
13180369SUPINE CYCLING EXERCISE MACHINE WITH A USER REPOSITIONABLE CRANKARM AND METHOD OF USEJuly 2011September 2013Allow2610YesNo
13106297Pushup Exercise DeviceMay 2011July 2013Allow2610YesNo
13068443Thigh exerciserMay 2011June 2013Allow2510NoNo
13041710Negative Pressure Bandage with Internal Storage ChamberMarch 2011January 2013Allow2220NoNo
12762282DYNAMIC LOWER LIMB REHABILITATION ROBOTIC APPARATUS AND METHOD OF REHABILITATING HUMAN GAITApril 2010October 2013Allow4230YesNo
12728873METHODS FOR WEIGHTING GARMENTS OR ORTHOTICS AND GARMENTS AND ORTHOTICS THEREFORMarch 2010October 2019Allow6081YesYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ROBERTSON, JENNIFER MARY DEICHL.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
2
Examiner Affirmed
2
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
20.9%
Lower than average

What This Means

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.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
5
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
5
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
11.1%
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, 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.

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 ROBERTSON, JENNIFER MARY DEICHL - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner ROBERTSON, JENNIFER MARY DEICHL works in Art Unit 3791 and has examined 42 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 100.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 24 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner ROBERTSON, JENNIFER MARY DEICHL's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 100% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by ROBERTSON, JENNIFER MARY DEICHL receive 1.48 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 25% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by ROBERTSON, JENNIFER MARY DEICHL is 24 months. This places the examiner in the 85% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ROBERTSON, JENNIFER MARY DEICHL. This interview benefit is in the 17% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 35.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 81% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 100.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 100% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

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 23% 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 21% 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.

Petition Practice

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 Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 48% 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 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:

  • Consider after-final amendments: This examiner frequently enters after-final amendments. If you can clearly overcome rejections with claim amendments, file an after-final amendment before resorting to an RCE.
  • RCEs are effective: This examiner has a high allowance rate after RCE compared to others. If you receive a final rejection and have substantive amendments or arguments, an RCE is likely to be successful.

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.