Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18431061 | Centrifuge-Free Sperm Preparation in an Intelligent Automated In Vitro Fertilization and Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Platform | February 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17625624 | ITERATIVE LEARNING CONTROL WITH SPARSE MEASUREMENTS FOR INSULIN INJECTIONS IN PEOPLE WITH TYPE 1 DIABETES | January 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 49 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17622179 | Effects of a Molecule | December 2021 | December 2025 | Abandon | 48 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17617092 | Notification System and Notification Method | December 2021 | December 2025 | Abandon | 48 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17528635 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COLLECTING BIOMETRIC INFORMATION | November 2021 | December 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13350905 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR STORING AND PROCESSING MOLECULAR INFORMATION | January 2012 | April 2013 | Allow | 15 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 13314617 | SPATIALLY HETEROGENEOUS STOCHASTIC PETRI-NET MODELING | December 2011 | September 2012 | Allow | 9 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13183712 | TRANSCRIPT MAPPING METHOD | July 2011 | February 2014 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 12965365 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING REPLIKIN SCAFFOLDS AND USES OF SAID REPLIKIN SCAFFOLDS | December 2010 | March 2013 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12702669 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR IDENTIFYING PCR PRIMERS SPECIFIC TO ONE OR MORE TARGET GENOMES | February 2010 | October 2012 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12551027 | METHOD FOR QUANTIFYING THE EXTENT OF HUMAN-INTRODUCED VARIABILITY IN MEDICAL TEST DATA | August 2009 | July 2012 | Allow | 34 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12535430 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR STORING AND PROCESSING MOLECULAR INFORMATION | August 2009 | September 2011 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12226598 | METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE RATIO OF TWO DISTINCT PEPTIDES OR POLYNUCLEIC ACIDS | January 2009 | March 2012 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12349955 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING COMPLEX PATTERNS OF AMINO ACIDS | January 2009 | December 2012 | Allow | 47 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12281740 | METHOD OF ASSESSING THE PROLIFERATION OR DIFFERENTIATION BEHAVIOUR OF A POPULATION OF TARGET CELLS IN A BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM | November 2008 | September 2011 | Allow | 36 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 11948411 | METHOD FOR DETERMINING OPTIMUM INTRAOCULAR LOCATIONS FOR DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS | November 2007 | May 2013 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 2 | No | No |
| 11926492 | PAIRWISE FRAGMENT INTERACTION COMPUTATION | October 2007 | August 2011 | Allow | 45 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 11926413 | PAIRWISE FRAGMENT INTERACTION COMPUTATION | October 2007 | July 2011 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 11923559 | METHOD OF PREDICTING INFLUENZA OUTBREAKS BY CORRELATING AN INCREASE IN REPLIKIN COUNT IN SHRIMP WHITE SPOT SYNDROME VIRUS AND/OR TAURA SYNDROME VIRUS | October 2007 | June 2011 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 11658130 | FEATURE PATTERN RECOGNITION SYSTEM, METHOD, AND PROGRAM | January 2007 | June 2012 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 2 | No | No |
| 11355120 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING REPLIKIN SCAFFOLDS AND USES OF SAID REPLIKIN SCAFFOLDS | February 2006 | September 2010 | Allow | 55 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11215754 | SPATIALLY HETEROGENEOUS STOCHASTIC PETRI-NET MODELING | August 2005 | September 2011 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11151591 | METHOD OF PROCESSING AND/OR GENOME MAPPING OF DITAG SEQUENCES | June 2005 | December 2012 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 11151068 | SURFACE CONTAMINATION ANALYZER FOR SEMICONDUCTOR WAFERS, METHOD USED THEREIN AND PROCESS FOR FABRICATING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE | June 2005 | December 2009 | Allow | 54 | 2 | 2 | No | Yes |
| 11116203 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING COMPLEX PATTERNS OF AMINO ACIDS | April 2005 | February 2010 | Allow | 58 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11101841 | COMPARATIVE GENOMIC RESEQUENCING | April 2005 | February 2010 | Allow | 58 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 10529509 | AUTOMATED HISTOLOGICAL GRADING OF TUBULES | March 2005 | April 2012 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 11033693 | PROFILE SEARCHING IN NUCLEIC ACID SEQUENCES USING THE FAST FOURIER TRANSFORMATION | January 2005 | June 2011 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 11031390 | SYSTEM, METHODS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR ANALYZING MICROARRAY DATA | January 2005 | May 2008 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10992973 | SYSTEM, METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CAUSAL IMPLICATION ANALYSIS IN BIOLOGICAL NETWORKS | November 2004 | October 2013 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 10956671 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DISCOVERING PATTERNS IN BINARY OR CATEGORICAL DATA | October 2004 | March 2010 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10892450 | CHARACTERIZING BIOLOGICAL STIMULI BY RESPONSE CURVES | July 2004 | March 2007 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 10868387 | METHOD FOR DETECTING DISCRIMINATORY DATA PATTERNS IN MULTIPLE SETS OF DATA AND DIAGNOSING DISEASE | June 2004 | March 2013 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 10852872 | VISUALIZATION METHOD OF RNA PSEUDOKNOT STRUCTURES | May 2004 | February 2011 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10490074 | METHOD FOR SEQUENCING NUCLEIC ACIDS | March 2004 | November 2008 | Allow | 56 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 10783624 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IMPROVED SIMULATION OF CHEMICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL REACTIONS | February 2004 | June 2012 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 10762207 | High resolution linear analysis of polymers | January 2004 | December 2012 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10681352 | DIAGNOSTIC METHOD OF SELECTING APPROPRIATE CANCER TREATMENTS AND SCREENING METHOD OF MEASURING REAGENTS AND CURATIVE MEDICINES FOR CANCER PATIENTS | October 2003 | July 2009 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10459698 | METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR SIMULATING BIOMEMBRANCES USING COARSE GRAIN MODELS | June 2003 | March 2012 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10442584 | SUBTERRANEAN FORMATION TREATMENT METHODS USING A DARCY SCALE AND PORE SCALE MODEL | May 2003 | November 2009 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 10343660 | WATER MONITORING SYSTEM USING BIVALVE MOLLUSKS | February 2003 | September 2007 | Allow | 55 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10287130 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING A WEIGHTED MEAN INTENSITY | November 2002 | January 2011 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SIMS, JASON M.
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, 33.3% 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.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner SIMS, JASON M works in Art Unit 3791 and has examined 40 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 92.5%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 55 months.
Examiner SIMS, JASON M's allowance rate of 92.5% 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 SIMS, JASON M 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 SIMS, JASON M is 55 months. This places the examiner in the 2% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +1.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SIMS, JASON M. This interview benefit is in the 20% 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, 28.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 51% 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 28.6% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 41% 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, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 100% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 100% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 83.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 86% 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 17.5% of allowed cases (in the 97% 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.
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.