Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17105772 | ULTRASONIC DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS | November 2020 | August 2024 | Abandon | 44 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17062671 | ULTRASOUND SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING ULTRASOUND SYSTEM | October 2020 | March 2024 | Allow | 41 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17038455 | ULTRASONIC DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS AND ULTRASONIC DIAGNOSTIC METHOD | September 2020 | August 2024 | Abandon | 47 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17038810 | ACCELERATED ACQUISITION OF SCAN DATA BY MEANS OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE | September 2020 | December 2023 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16968231 | System and Method for Detecting Small Blood-Tissue Barrier Disruption | August 2020 | November 2024 | Allow | 52 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16768290 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT A BIOPSY TAKING PROCESS AND BIOPSY | May 2020 | September 2024 | Allow | 51 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16880458 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ESTIMATING BIO-INFORMATION | May 2020 | December 2023 | Allow | 43 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16743418 | Tumor Tissue Characterization using Multi-Parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging | January 2020 | January 2024 | Allow | 48 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16616571 | TRANSPERINEAL STEPPER INCLUDING A GEARLESS LINEAR MOVEMENT | November 2019 | October 2023 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16576759 | METHOD OF GENERATING A MODEL FOR HEART RATE ESTIMATION FROM A PHOTOPLETHYSMOGRAPHY SIGNAL AND A METHOD AND A DEVICE FOR HEART RATE ESTIMATION | September 2019 | February 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16512653 | DEEP LEARNING FOR PERFUSION IN MEDICAL IMAGING | July 2019 | May 2024 | Allow | 58 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16384795 | METHOD FOR JOINT ARTERIAL INPUT FUNCTION AND TRACER KINETIC PARAMETER ESTIMATION IN ACCELERATED DCE-MRI USING A MODEL CONSISTENCY CONSTRAINT | April 2019 | January 2024 | Allow | 57 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ASHINE, FIKIRTE T.
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, 100.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner ASHINE, FIKIRTE T works in Art Unit 3798 and has examined 12 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 75.0%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 48 months.
Examiner ASHINE, FIKIRTE T's allowance rate of 75.0% places them in the 42% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by ASHINE, FIKIRTE T receive 3.83 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 95% 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 ASHINE, FIKIRTE T 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 -33.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ASHINE, FIKIRTE T. 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, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 42% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 25.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 36% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 100% percentile among all examiners. 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, 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'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 54% 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.