Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18774966 | CRYOPUMP | July 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18593121 | SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR NON-INVASIVE IMAGE-BASED PLAQUE ANALYSIS AND RISK DETERMINATION | March 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18592081 | SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR NON-INVASIVE IMAGE-BASED PLAQUE ANALYSIS AND RISK DETERMINATION | February 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18592176 | SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR NON-INVASIVE IMAGE-BASED PLAQUE ANALYSIS AND RISK DETERMINATION | February 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18556031 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PRE-COOLING A STREAM OF A TARGET FLUID TO A TEMPERATURE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 90 K | October 2023 | March 2026 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18373052 | INSTALLATION AND PROCESS FOR PRODUCTION OF A CRYOGENIC FLUID | September 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18276803 | Device for Providing Liquid Helium Forced Flow Cooling Fluid | August 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18225243 | APPARATUS FOR INPUTTING COMBINED IMAGE OF PHOTOACOUSTIC IMAGE AND ULTRASONIC IMAGE AND METHOD THEREOF | July 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18355347 | CRYOGENIC LINK | July 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18267932 | DEVICE, METHOD AND SYSTEMS FOR PROVIDING IMAGING OF ONE OR MORE ASPECTS OF BLOOD PERFUSION | June 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18210740 | Method of Hydrogen Liquefaction Using Optimized Claude Refrigeration Cycles | June 2023 | September 2025 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17839456 | ULTRASONIC ENDOSCOPE AND BALLOON | June 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 43 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17737287 | MICROBUBBLE DESTRUCTION FOR MEDICAL ULTRASOUND IMAGING | May 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 44 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17370325 | Heart Rate Correction Using External Data | July 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 50 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17332056 | DETECTING HEART RATES USING EYE-TRACKING CAMERAS | May 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17178403 | IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM | February 2021 | December 2025 | Allow | 57 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16729313 | FLEXIBLE MULTI-COIL TRACKING SENSOR | December 2019 | November 2025 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 14134634 | SYSTEM FOR OFFSHORE LIQUEFACTION | December 2013 | January 2014 | Allow | 1 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14035642 | METHOD FOR OFFSHORE LIQUEFACTION | September 2013 | November 2013 | Allow | 1 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13848002 | METHOD FOR LIQUEFACTION OF NATURAL GAS OFFSHORE | March 2013 | October 2013 | Allow | 7 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12682673 | PROCESS FOR THE SEPARATION OF CO2 FROM A GASEOUS FEED STREAM | July 2010 | June 2013 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12529784 | Configurations And Methods For Offshore LNG Regasification And Heating Value Conditioning | September 2009 | November 2013 | Allow | 51 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 12401875 | ROTARY TYPE ULTRALOW TEMPERATURE REFRIGERANT SUPPLY APPARATUS | March 2009 | January 2014 | Allow | 58 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12307885 | SHUTTLE TYPE MAGNETIC REFRIGERATOR | February 2009 | March 2013 | Allow | 50 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11579320 | Acoustic Power Transmitting Unit for Thermoacoustic Systems | July 2008 | October 2013 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11875052 | SYSTEM TO COLD COMPRESS AN AIR STREAM USING NATURAL GAS REFRIGERATION | October 2007 | September 2013 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner RAYMOND, KEITH MICHAEL.
With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.
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.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner RAYMOND, KEITH MICHAEL works in Art Unit 3798 and has examined 13 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 84.6%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 51 months.
Examiner RAYMOND, KEITH MICHAEL's allowance rate of 84.6% places them in the 60% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by RAYMOND, KEITH MICHAEL receive 2.62 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 77% 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 RAYMOND, KEITH MICHAEL is 51 months. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -7.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by RAYMOND, KEITH MICHAEL. This interview benefit is in the 4% 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, 27.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 47% 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 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 4% 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 21% 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, 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 49% 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 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.