Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18418393 | NON-CONTACT RAPID DIAGNOSIS OF ILLNESS BY LASER, INFRA RED, TERAHERTZ AND/OR UV SPECTROSCOPY AND ANALYSIS OF WATER MIXTURE ENVELOPE | January 2024 | November 2024 | Abandon | 10 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18475052 | GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE FOR CATHETER POSITIONING AND INSERTION | September 2023 | March 2024 | Allow | 5 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18237231 | Multilayer Smart Bra or Bra Insert for Optical Detection of Breast Cancer | August 2023 | May 2025 | Abandon | 20 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 18138971 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR IMAGING VASCULATURE | April 2023 | December 2024 | Abandon | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18105855 | NON-CONTACT RAPID DIAGNOSIS OF ILLNESS BY LASER, INFRA RED, TERAHERTZ AND/OR UV SPECTROSCOPY AND ANALYSIS OF WATER MIXTURE ENVELOPE | February 2023 | May 2024 | Abandon | 16 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 18096748 | Wearable Device (Smart Bra) with Compressive Chambers and Optical Sensors for Analyzing Breast Tissue | January 2023 | November 2024 | Allow | 23 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17897182 | Smart Bra for Optical Scanning of Breast Tissue to Detect Abnormal Tissue with Selectively-Expandable Components to Reduce Air Gaps | August 2022 | February 2024 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17808956 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REVASCULARIZATION ASSESSMENT | June 2022 | July 2024 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17457769 | System for Multi-Directional Tracking of Head Mounted Displays for Real-Time Augmented Reality Guidance of Surgical Procedures | December 2021 | March 2024 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17478513 | Method and Probe System for Tissue Analysis in a Surgical Cavity in an Intraoperative Procedure | September 2021 | August 2024 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17424844 | IMAGING RECONSTRUCTION USING REAL-TIME SIGNAL OF ROTARY POSITION FROM NEAR DISTAL END ENCODER | July 2021 | April 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17376251 | NON-LINEAR SINGLE AXIS NAVIGATION SENSOR WITH STRAIN RELIEF | July 2021 | June 2025 | Allow | 47 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17327317 | Dynamic Calibration of Light Intensity in a System For Non-invasive Detection of Skin Cancer Using Elastic Scattering Spectroscopy | May 2021 | March 2024 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17215957 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MEDICAL ULTRASOUND WITH MONITORING PAD | March 2021 | September 2023 | Abandon | 30 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 17052118 | INTEGRATED MEDICAL IMAGING SYSTEM FOR TRACKING OF MICRO-NANO SCALE OBJECTS | October 2020 | May 2024 | Abandon | 43 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17021157 | SPECTROMETER INCLUDING TUNABLE ON-CHIP LASER AND SPECTRUM MEASUREMENT METHOD | September 2020 | March 2025 | Allow | 54 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17005554 | Use of Octafluorocyclobutane for Lung Imaging | August 2020 | August 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16969682 | DIGITAL ULTRASOUND CABLE AND ASSOCIATED DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS | August 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 58 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16954256 | COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIA, MRI-COMPATIBLE TONGUE MEASUREMENT DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR TREATING DYSARTHRIA, SWALLOWING, AND MASTICATION DISORDERS ASSOCIATED WITH CNS OR PNS LESIONS | June 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16858213 | MEDICAL IMAGING SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OPERATING SAME, STORAGE MEDIUM AND PROCESSOR | April 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 59 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16641074 | Scanning Apparatus For Scanning An Anatomical Region | February 2020 | August 2024 | Abandon | 54 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16701679 | APPARATUS, METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DISPLAYING INTRALUMINAL IMAGES | December 2019 | August 2024 | Abandon | 57 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 16667050 | METHOD FOR MEDICAL DEVICE LOCALIZATION BASED ON MAGNETIC AND IMPEDANCE SENSORS | October 2019 | April 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16550159 | FLUORESCENCE IMAGING SYSTEM | August 2019 | July 2024 | Abandon | 59 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16062547 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PRESENTING COMPLEX MEDICAL CONDITION DIAGNOSES | June 2018 | December 2023 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15857678 | VECTOR MAGNETOMETERS NETWORK AND ASSOCIATED POSITIONING METHOD | December 2017 | May 2025 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15660748 | MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING APPARATUS AND A METHOD FOR DETERMINING TRIGGER TIMING OF CE-MRA SCAN | July 2017 | October 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 15637331 | X-RAY DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD | June 2017 | June 2024 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15313958 | OPTICAL MEASUREMENT SYSTEM AND OPTICAL BRAIN FUNCTION MEASUREMENT METHOD | November 2016 | April 2024 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15073749 | DEVICES AND METHODS FOR ULTRASOUND IMAGING | March 2016 | August 2024 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14208435 | HIGH TEMPORAL RESOLUTION MONITORING OF CONTACT BETWEEN CATHETER TIP AND TARGET TISSUE DURING A REAL-TIME-MRI-GUIDED ABLATION | March 2014 | September 2018 | Allow | 54 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KELLOGG, MICHAEL S.
With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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, 50.0% 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.
✓ 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 KELLOGG, MICHAEL S works in Art Unit 3798 and has examined 30 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 46.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 54 months.
Examiner KELLOGG, MICHAEL S's allowance rate of 46.7% places them in the 6% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by KELLOGG, MICHAEL S receive 3.13 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 97% 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 KELLOGG, MICHAEL S is 54 months. This places the examiner in the 0% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +67.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KELLOGG, MICHAEL S. This interview benefit is in the 99% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 13.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 4% 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 13.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 8% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 16% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 44.4% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 49% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 45% 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 44% 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.