Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17056918 | Dual Mode Marker and Tracer Detection System | November 2020 | January 2024 | Abandon | 38 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17050079 | A Method Of Assessment Of Microcirculation Oscillations And Device Therefor | October 2020 | August 2023 | Allow | 34 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17077722 | OPTICAL TRACKING SYSTEM AND TRACKING METHOD USING THE SAME | October 2020 | July 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17049324 | APPARATUS FOR ORIENTATION DISPLAY AND ALIGNMENT IN PERCUTANEOUS DEVICES | October 2020 | December 2024 | Allow | 50 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15733752 | COMPUTER-SUPPORTED INTRANEURAL FACILITATION FOR VASCULAR CHANGES | October 2020 | January 2024 | Allow | 39 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17043282 | ULTRASOUND IMAGE DEVICE AND ULTRASOUND IMAGE GENERATION METHOD | September 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 56 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16968313 | MULTI-PARAMETRIC TISSUE STIFFNESS QUANTIFICATION | August 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 52 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16985740 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SUPPORTING SKIN TREATMENT USING ULTRASONIC WAVES, AND NON-TEMPORARY COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM | August 2020 | February 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16771449 | MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING APPARATUS, SENSITIVITY DISTRIBUTION CALCULATION METHOD, AND SENSITIVITY DISTRIBUTION CALCULATION PROGRAM | June 2020 | February 2024 | Allow | 45 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16769488 | POWERLESS ELECTROMAGNETIC SENSOR AND SURGICAL NAVIGATION SYSTEM INCLUDING SAME | June 2020 | May 2024 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16857364 | FLEXIBLE BRAIN PROBE OVER GUIDEWIRE | April 2020 | February 2024 | Abandon | 46 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16729435 | TROCAR WITH MOVABLE CAMERA AND BUILT-IN POSITION SENSOR | December 2019 | May 2024 | Abandon | 52 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16685094 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR TOMOGRAPHICALLY VISUALIZING VISCOELASTICITY OF TISSUE | November 2019 | August 2024 | Abandon | 57 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16613591 | SYSTEMS, METHOD AND DEVICES FOR ASSISTING OR PERFORMING GUIDING INTERVENTIONAL PROCEDURES USING INERTIAL MEASUREMENT UNITS AND MAGNETOMETER SENSORS | November 2019 | February 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 16564139 | SPINAL IMPLANT SYSTEM AND METHODS OF USE | September 2019 | March 2024 | Abandon | 54 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16470903 | MOVABLE TRACKER SYSTEM | June 2019 | January 2024 | Allow | 55 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16389379 | OPTICAL TRACKING SYSTEM AND TRACKING METHOD USING THE SAME | April 2019 | March 2024 | Abandon | 59 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16332399 | SENSING SYSTEM AND METHOD | March 2019 | August 2024 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16224261 | SKIN DIAGNOSING DEVICE, SKIN CONDITION OUTPUTTING METHOD, PROGRAM, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | December 2018 | April 2024 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16108537 | INJECTION APPLICATOR FOR TISSUE MARKERS | August 2018 | March 2025 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 15862461 | NO-VIEW INTERFRACTION TREATMENT TARGET MOTION MANAGEMENT USING VOLUMETRIC IMAGING | January 2018 | September 2024 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15832875 | METHOD FOR DETERMINING TISSUE PROPERTIES OF TUMORS | December 2017 | January 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15438440 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR JOINT ACTIVITY MONITORING | February 2017 | January 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 11 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15109330 | ULTRASOUND NAVIGATION/TISSUE CHARACTERIZATION COMBINATION | June 2016 | December 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 14208673 | DELIVERY CATHETER HAVING IMAGING CAPABILITIES | March 2014 | March 2025 | Allow | 60 | 19 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12527632 | ULTRASONIC APPARATUS, A THERAPEUTIC SYSTEM AND A METHOD OF INCREASING A WORKFLOW | August 2009 | September 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SIRIPURAPU, RAJEEV P.
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, 42.9% 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.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner SIRIPURAPU, RAJEEV P works in Art Unit 3798 and has examined 26 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 42.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 56 months.
Examiner SIRIPURAPU, RAJEEV P's allowance rate of 42.3% places them in the 9% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by SIRIPURAPU, RAJEEV P receive 4.88 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 98% 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 SIRIPURAPU, RAJEEV P is 56 months. This places the examiner in the 3% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +10.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SIRIPURAPU, RAJEEV P. This interview benefit is in the 43% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 6.5% 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 6.5% 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.
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 57.1% of appeals filed. This is in the 31% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 150.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 97% 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'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.