Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17128177 | Speech Processor Cases | December 2020 | July 2023 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17126626 | SYSTEMS, METHODS AND COMPUTER-ACCESSIBLE MEDIUM FOR A FEEDBACK ANALYSIS AND/OR TREATMENT OF AT LEAST ONE PATIENT USING AN ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION TREATMENT DEVICE | December 2020 | September 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17123818 | THERAPEUTIC ZONE ASSESSOR | December 2020 | July 2024 | Abandon | 43 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16978585 | STATE OF DISCOMFORT DETERMINATION DEVICE | September 2020 | August 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17004556 | NAVIGATION-BASED ECG RECORDING WITH A FEW ELECTRODES | August 2020 | December 2023 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16944443 | THERAPY IN THE EVENT OF ELECTRODE FAILURE | July 2020 | August 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16893979 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | June 2020 | September 2024 | Abandon | 52 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16638889 | ROBOTIC SURGICAL SYSTEMS AND DRAPES FOR COVERING COMPONENTS OF ROBOTIC SURGICAL SYSTEMS | February 2020 | August 2023 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16747400 | Electroacupuncture Treatment System and Data Optimization Method Thereof | January 2020 | June 2023 | Abandon | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16624863 | A LIGHT-BASED SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SHAPING AND TREATING HAIR | December 2019 | July 2024 | Abandon | 55 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16694978 | Microdermabrasion System with Combination Skin Therapies | November 2019 | April 2024 | Abandon | 53 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16592217 | SYSTEM FOR MANAGEMENT AND PREVENTION OF VENOUS POOLING | October 2019 | June 2024 | Abandon | 56 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16571124 | VARIABLE HIGH SPEED LASER TIP ADAPTER | September 2019 | September 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 16415544 | CONTROLLED CROSS-LINKING INITIATION AND CORNEAL TOPOGRAPHY FEEDBACK SYSTEMS FOR DIRECTING CROSS-LINKING | May 2019 | August 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16055086 | SYSTEMS, APPARATUSES, AND METHODS FOR LOCATING BLOOD FLOW TURBULENCE IN THE CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM | August 2018 | June 2021 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15686804 | ELECTROCARDIOGRAM (ECG) MEASUREMENT ON A WRIST-WORN ELECTRONIC DEVICE | August 2017 | July 2021 | Allow | 47 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 15151281 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DERMATOLOGICAL TREATMENT GAS DISCHARGE LAMP WITH CONTROLLABLE CURRENT DENSITY | May 2016 | March 2020 | Abandon | 46 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14517050 | Endovascular Treatment Apparatus and Method | October 2014 | April 2019 | Abandon | 54 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner JACKSON, GARY.
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.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner JACKSON, GARY works in Art Unit 3792 and has examined 18 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 11.1%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 48 months.
Examiner JACKSON, GARY's allowance rate of 11.1% places them in the 2% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by JACKSON, GARY receive 2.94 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 82% 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 JACKSON, GARY is 48 months. This places the examiner in the 10% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by JACKSON, GARY. This interview benefit is in the 18% 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, 10.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 6% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show lower effectiveness with this examiner compared to others. Consider whether a continuation application might be more strategic, especially if you need to add new matter or significantly broaden claims.
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.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 100.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 78% 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 99% 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, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 93% 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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 47% 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 52% 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.