Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16945314 | ULTRASOUND VISUALIZATION, AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS | July 2020 | April 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16937117 | Optical Coherence Tomography And Pressure Based Systems And Methods | July 2020 | August 2024 | Allow | 49 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16882713 | ULTRASOUND IMAGING SPATIAL COMPOUNDING METHOD AND SYSTEM | May 2020 | March 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16858594 | IMAGING METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INTRAOPERATIVE SURGICAL MARGIN ASSESSMENT | April 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16850979 | Apparatus, System, and Method for Mapping the Location of a Nerve | April 2020 | May 2024 | Abandon | 49 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16823274 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING | March 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16798265 | IMAGING SYSTEMS AND METHODS | February 2020 | December 2023 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16624755 | FMRI RECONSTRUCTION OF BRAIN-STATE-SPECIFIC IMAGES FROM SLOW, ANATOMICAL, MRI IMAGE DATA | December 2019 | December 2024 | Allow | 59 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16703348 | DEVICES FOR THERAPEUTIC NASAL NEUROMODULATION AND ASSOCIATED METHODS AND SYSTEMS | December 2019 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 13 | 1 | No | No |
| 16680669 | Ultrasonic Imaging Device and Control Method Thereof | November 2019 | April 2024 | Abandon | 53 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16477886 | A METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MONITORING ATTENTION OF A SUBJECT | July 2019 | April 2024 | Abandon | 57 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16375327 | System and Method for Displaying an Image | April 2019 | September 2023 | Allow | 54 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16339445 | Systems and Methods for 3D Reconstruction of Anatomical Organs and Inclusions Using Short-Wave Infrared (SWIR) Projection Tomography | April 2019 | January 2024 | Allow | 57 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16228629 | POWER PARAMETERS FOR ULTRASONIC CATHETER | December 2018 | November 2023 | Allow | 59 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16076708 | HYBRID X-RAY AND GAMMA IMAGING SYSTEM | August 2018 | December 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16031669 | METHOD OF SHARING INFORMATION IN ULTRASOUND IMAGING | July 2018 | October 2023 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15778703 | METHOD FOR DETERMINING A MECHANICAL PROPERTY OF A LAYERED SOFT MATERIAL | May 2018 | June 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15923929 | METHOD FOR PREDICTING CLINICAL SEVERITY OF A NEUROLOGICAL DISORDER BY MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING | March 2018 | December 2023 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15727487 | SYSTEM AND APPARATUS FOR AUTOMATED TOTAL BODY IMAGING | October 2017 | March 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 15522098 | A METHOD AND DEVICE FOR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING DATA ACQUISITION GUIDED BY PHYSIOLOGIC FEEDBACK | April 2017 | July 2023 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15260453 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR IMAGE-GUIDED TEMPORARY DENERVATION | September 2016 | December 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15116474 | DETACHABLE TRACKING REFERENCE ARRAY | August 2016 | June 2024 | Allow | 60 | 11 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SHAFQAT, AMY JEANETTE.
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, 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 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 shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner SHAFQAT, AMY JEANETTE works in Art Unit 3798 and has examined 22 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 54.5%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 59 months.
Examiner SHAFQAT, AMY JEANETTE's allowance rate of 54.5% places them in the 17% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by SHAFQAT, AMY JEANETTE receive 4.45 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 SHAFQAT, AMY JEANETTE is 59 months. This places the examiner in the 2% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +52.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SHAFQAT, AMY JEANETTE. This interview benefit is in the 93% 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, 17.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 18% 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 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 5% 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.
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 24% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 53% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 50.0% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 73% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.
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.