Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18594843 | HISTOTRIPSY SYSTEMS AND METHODS | March 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18277166 | METHOD FOR DETERMINING A POSITION OF A CATHETER TIP OF A CATHETER | August 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18049848 | METHOD OF ANALYZING QUALITY OF OSTEOCHONDRAL GRAFT THROUGH MICRO-CT ASSAY | October 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17763484 | SEMIRIGID DRIVE SHAFT FOR ENDOSCOPIC PROBE | March 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 46 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16702824 | SCATTER CORRECTION FOR LONG AXIAL FOV | December 2019 | October 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15964542 | REAL-TIME ANNOTATION OF SYMPTOMS IN TELEMEDICINE | April 2018 | June 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 12793380 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A MEDICAL SYRINGE | June 2010 | October 2012 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12690843 | CHLORINE DIOXIDE TREATMENT FOR BIOLOGICAL TISSUE | January 2010 | August 2012 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11637275 | DRUG DELIVERY DEVICE AND METHODOLOGY | December 2006 | October 2012 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10529646 | CATHETER | November 2005 | June 2008 | Allow | 39 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 11260976 | DEVICE FOR TRANSDERMAL ELECTROTRANSPORT DELIVERY OF FENTANYL AND SUFENTANIL | October 2005 | July 2007 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11050422 | ENHANCED SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RF-INDUCED HYPERTHERMIA | February 2005 | October 2008 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 11005151 | MEDICAL SITE CONNECTION | December 2004 | March 2007 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10876306 | SYSTEM FOR BI-DIRECTIONALLY CONTROLLING THE CRYO-TIP OF A CRYOABLATION CATHETER | June 2004 | January 2008 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 10668034 | CANNULA PROTECTING COVER | September 2003 | November 2007 | Allow | 50 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10621331 | STERILIZED SAFETY SYRINGE | July 2003 | February 2008 | Allow | 55 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 10613796 | STEERABLE AND SHAPABLE CATHETER EMPLOYING FLUID FORCE | July 2003 | April 2006 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 2 | No | No |
| 10353769 | DUAL ELECTRODE ADVANCED ELECTROCHEMICAL DELIVERY SYSTEM | January 2003 | January 2008 | Allow | 59 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10310496 | CAVITY MEASUREMENT DEVICE AND METHOD OF ASSEMBLY | December 2002 | November 2006 | Allow | 47 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 10291977 | EXTRACTION DEVICE WITH TUBES HAVING DIFFERENT CROSS-SECTIONS | November 2002 | May 2008 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KOHARSKI, CHRISTOPHER.
With a 33.3% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is above the USPTO average, indicating that appeals have better success here than typical.
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, 40.0% 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.
✓ 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 KOHARSKI, CHRISTOPHER works in Art Unit 3797 and has examined 16 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 87.5%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 47 months.
Examiner KOHARSKI, CHRISTOPHER's allowance rate of 87.5% places them in the 67% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by KOHARSKI, CHRISTOPHER receive 2.25 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 63% 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 KOHARSKI, CHRISTOPHER is 47 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 -28.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KOHARSKI, CHRISTOPHER. This interview benefit is in the 1% 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 5% 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 50.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 76% 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.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 50.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 46% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show below-average success with this examiner. Consider whether your arguments are strong enough to warrant a PAC request.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 21% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 33.3% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 80.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 85% 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 31.2% of allowed cases (in the 100% 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 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.