USPTO Examiner LI JOHN DENNY - Art Unit 3798

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18700412BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION DETECTION APPARATUS AND BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION DETECTION SYSTEMApril 2024June 2025Allow1510YesNo
18557555AUTOMATIC DETERMINATION OF AN APPROPRIATE POSITIONING OF A PATIENT-SPECIFIC INSTRUMENTATION WITH A DEPTH CAMERAOctober 2023February 2025Allow1520YesNo
18473885LOCATION AND ORIENTATION ESTIMATION OF DEVICES INCORPORATING PERMANENT MAGNETSSeptember 2023April 2024Allow700NoNo
18214570ULTRASOUND IMAGING SYSTEMS, DEVICES AND METHODS THAT SIMULATE A VIRTUAL MOVING TRANSDUCER/RECEIVER TO IMPLEMENT A SYNTHETIC APERTURE ARRAYJune 2023December 2023Allow610YesNo
18256181Body Temperature Estimation DeviceJune 2023June 2025Allow2410NoNo
18175679SURGICAL TOOL SYSTEMS AND METHODSFebruary 2023January 2024Allow1010NoNo
17972889MACHINE DIFFERENTIATION OF ABNORMALITIES IN BIOELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDSOctober 2022May 2024Allow1910YesNo
17971740OMNIDIRECTIONAL PHOTOACOUSTIC TOMOGRAPHY SYSTEMOctober 2022April 2025Allow2910YesNo
17961810ULTRASOUND MARKER DETECTION, MARKERS AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS, METHODS AND ARTICLESOctober 2022June 2025Allow3311NoNo
17955077MAPPING AND QUANTIFYING SHEAR STRESS AND HEMOLYSIS IN PATIENTSSeptember 2022January 2025Allow2810NoNo
17892692APPARATUS FOR VISUALIZING TISSUE PROPERTYAugust 2022December 2024Abandon2710NoNo
17877876PORTABLE PROBE FOR PHOTOACOUSTIC TOMOGRAPHY AND REAL-TIME PHOTOACOUSTIC TOMOGRAPHY DEVICEJuly 2022March 2024Allow2011YesNo
17870909ECHOCARDIOGRAM CONTEXT MEASUREMENT TOOLJuly 2022April 2024Allow2110YesNo
17758845ULTRASOUND-EMITTING APPARATUS FOR APPLYING SELECTIVE TREATMENTS TO ADIPOSE TISSUE IN BODY REJUVENATION/REMODELLING PROCESSESJuly 2022March 2025Allow3220NoNo
17853827MULTIMODAL POSITION TRANSFORMATION DUAL-HELMET MEG APPARATUSJune 2022December 2024Allow2911NoNo
17853769DUAL-HELMET MAGNETOENCEPHALOGRAPHY APPARATUSJune 2022November 2024Allow2921NoNo
17789107METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PHOTOACOUSTIC IMAGING OF TISSUE AND ORGAN FIBROSISJune 2022January 2025Allow3110YesNo
17745384ROTATION DETERMINATION IN AN ULTRASOUND BEAMMay 2022February 2024Allow2111YesNo
17734593Method And System For Monitoring Effectiveness Of A Treatment RegimenMay 2022December 2024Allow3210NoNo
17679331ECHOGENIC NEEDLEFebruary 2022May 2024Allow2721YesYes
17540814INSERTION DEVICE POSITIONING GUIDANCE SYSTEM AND METHODDecember 2021January 2024Abandon2540NoNo
17516810VISUALIZATION, NAVIGATION, AND PLANNING WITH ELECTROMAGNETIC NAVIGATION BRONCHOSCOPY AND CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY INTEGRATEDNovember 2021October 2023Allow2410NoNo
17401640FLUORO-ACOUSTIC MULTIPIPETTE ELECTRODE AND METHODS OF USE THEREFORAugust 2021October 2024Abandon3840YesNo
17295469LONG-TERM NON-INVASIVE SYSTEM FOR MONITORING AND CHARACTERIZING ATRIAL ARRHYTHMIAS IN PATIENTS WITH POST-STROKE CONDITIONSMay 2021June 2025Allow4930YesNo
17287623ADAPTIVE ULTRASOUND FLOW IMAGINGApril 2021December 2023Allow3220YesNo
17284860METHODS, SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR ULTRASOUND IMAGING USING COHERENCE CONTRIBUTIONApril 2021April 2024Allow3620YesNo
17283524BODY CAVITY INSERTABLE ULTRASOUND APPARATUS HAVING STRUCTURE FOR CIRCULATION OF ULTRASOUND TRANSMISSION MEDIUMApril 2021December 2024Abandon4420NoNo
17278962DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DIAGNOSING GASTRIC LESION THROUGH DEEP LEARNING OF GASTROENDOSCOPIC IMAGESMarch 2021August 2024Abandon4020NoNo
17276784DEVICE FOR OPTOACOUSTIC IMAGING AND CORRESPONDING CONTROL METHODMarch 2021October 2024Abandon4330NoNo
17273707AUGMENTED REALITY USER GUIDANCE DURING EXAMINATIONS OR INTERVENTIONAL PROCEDURESMarch 2021March 2025Abandon4840NoNo
17150866SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF DISSIPATING HEAT FROM A HANDHELD MEDICAL IMAGING DEVICEJanuary 2021December 2024Allow4761YesNo
17260793Systems and Methods for Removing Noise-Induced Bias in Ultrasound Blood Flow ImagingJanuary 2021June 2025Allow5331YesNo
17115939METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR QUANTITATIVE ULTRASOUND IMAGING USING SINGLE-ULTRASOUND PROBEDecember 2020August 2024Allow4441NoNo
17101616ROBOTIC SURGICAL SYSTEM AND METHODS OF USE THEREOFNovember 2020January 2024Abandon3830YesNo
16949786ROBOTIC SURGERY DEPTH DETECTION AND MODELINGNovember 2020October 2024Allow4731YesNo
17084299METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR THE AUTOMATIC DETECTION OF ATHEROMAS IN PERIPHERAL ARTERIESOctober 2020December 2024Allow4931YesNo
16979420ACOUSTIC-OPTICAL IMAGING METHODS AND SYSTEMSOctober 2020January 2024Allow4010NoNo
17027655ULTRASOUND APPARATUS WITH IMPROVED HEAT DISSIPATION AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING SAMESeptember 2020December 2023Abandon3920NoYes
17025309SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR NON-CONTACT ULTRASOUND IMAGE RECONSTRUCTIONSeptember 2020October 2024Abandon4940YesNo
16927876SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING VISUALIZATION OF ULTRASOUND IMAGE DATAJuly 2020February 2025Allow5550YesYes
16960647ULTRASOUND SYSTEM FOR DETECTING LUNG CONSOLIDATIONJuly 2020December 2024Allow5330YesNo
16913947ULTRASOUND DEVICEJune 2020July 2024Allow4831YesNo
16911991COMPUTER-ASSISTED TISSUE NAVIGATIONJune 2020July 2024Allow4850NoNo
16670190ARTICULATING GUIDE WITH INTEGRAL POSITION SENSOROctober 2019January 2024Allow5141YesNo
16568415VERY NARROW PROBE WITH COILSeptember 2019December 2023Allow5161YesNo
16553382HOLLOW TUBE SURGICAL INSTRUMENT WITH SINGLE AXIS SENSORAugust 2019January 2024Allow5240YesNo
16390078Simultaneous Multi-Slab Thermometry During MR-Guided Thermal TherapyApril 2019July 2025Allow6091YesNo
16237154METHOD AND SYSTEMS FOR INCREASING TRANSMIT POWER DURING AN ULTRASOUND SCANDecember 2018January 2025Allow6060YesYes
16150546BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS SYSTEM, BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM CODEOctober 2018September 2023Allow5960YesNo
16128180CONTROLLING AN EMITTER ASSEMBLY PULSE SEQUENCESeptember 2018August 2024Allow6060YesYes
16051723PLANE SELECTION USING LOCALIZER IMAGESAugust 2018December 2024Allow6060YesNo
15772121ULTRASOUND PROBE, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MEASURING ARTERIAL PARAMETERS USING NON-IMAGING ULTRASOUNDApril 2018October 2023Allow6071YesNo
15752116IMAGE GUIDED FOCUSED ULTRASOUND TREATMENT DEVICE AND AIMING APPARATUSFebruary 2018January 2025Allow6081YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner LI, JOHN DENNY.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
2
Examiner Affirmed
1
(50.0%)
Examiner Reversed
1
(50.0%)
Reversal Percentile
79.6%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 50.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
5
Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(40.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
3
(60.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
65.1%
Higher than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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.

Strategic Recommendations

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 LI, JOHN DENNY - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner LI, JOHN DENNY works in Art Unit 3798 and has examined 52 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 80.8%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 40 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner LI, JOHN DENNY's allowance rate of 80.8% places them in the 44% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by LI, JOHN DENNY receive 3.00 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by LI, JOHN DENNY is 40 months. This places the examiner in the 9% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +25.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LI, JOHN DENNY. This interview benefit is in the 76% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 23.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 22% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 6.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 3% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 21% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 71.4% of appeals filed. This is in the 55% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 20.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows above-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. The mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) provides an opportunity for reconsideration.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 85.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 94% 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 Cooperation and Flexibility

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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.