Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18810109 | COMPUTER SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE DEVICES FOR OPTIMAL HOME RENTALS | August 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14967600 | Enhancing Performance of Spectral Band Replication and Related High Frequency Reconstruction Coding | December 2015 | April 2017 | Abandon | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14466613 | Printing Service System And Method To Be Performed In Such A System | August 2014 | December 2015 | Allow | 16 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14257635 | Delay Locked Loop Circuit and Method | April 2014 | October 2016 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14010980 | COMPUTER SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING DATA RELATING TO NURSE INTERVENTION PROGRAM DECISIONS | August 2013 | June 2014 | Allow | 10 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13960669 | SHARING GPS NAVIGATION INFORMATION | August 2013 | February 2015 | Allow | 19 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12062148 | PAY FOR STUDIES SUBMITTED (PASS) METHOD FOR CLINICAL TRIALS | April 2008 | February 2015 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 12012836 | PRESCRIPTION REFILL REMINDER SYSTEM AND METHOD | February 2008 | December 2014 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11777700 | MEDICAL DATA ACQUISITION AND PATIENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD | July 2007 | December 2014 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11611799 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVING PATIENT COMPLIANCE WITH A PRESCRIPTION DRUG REGIMEN | December 2006 | December 2014 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner FUELLING, 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, 33.3% 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 FUELLING, MICHAEL works in Art Unit 3992 and has examined 9 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 77.8%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 30 months.
Examiner FUELLING, MICHAEL's allowance rate of 77.8% places them in the 45% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by FUELLING, MICHAEL receive 2.44 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 71% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by FUELLING, MICHAEL is 30 months. This places the examiner in the 62% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +25.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by FUELLING, MICHAEL. This interview benefit is in the 72% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 39% 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 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.
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 52% 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.