USPTO Examiner CHERN CHRISTINA - Art Unit 1722

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
19311597PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE MOUNT WITH INTEGRATED CABLE MANAGEMENT FEATUREAugust 2025February 2026Allow610YesNo
19254087FUNCTIONAL POLYCRYSTALLINE SILICON TUNNELING SILICON OXIDE PASSIVATED CONTACT STRUCTURE AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOFJune 2025January 2026Allow720YesNo
19220156SOLAR PANEL ASSEMBLY METHODMay 2025March 2026Allow900YesNo
18869940Solar Cell Sheet and Solar Cell String GroupNovember 2024January 2026Allow1410NoNo
18917170PEROVSKITE SOLAR CELL CONFIGURATIONSOctober 2024September 2025Allow1100NoNo
18910726THERMOELECTRIC MODULEOctober 2024September 2025Allow1100NoNo
18906809HIGH-CONCENTRATING PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM WITH BACKPLATE SUPPORTOctober 2024August 2025Allow1100NoNo
18896481BACK CONTACT SOLAR CELL AND SOLAR CELL MODULESeptember 2024December 2025Allow1430YesNo
18851037SOLAR ENERGY UTILIZATION UNITSeptember 2024March 2026Abandon1710NoNo
18806705SOLAR CELL, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME, AND PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULEAugust 2024November 2025Allow1510YesNo
18806855SOLAR CELLAugust 2024January 2026Allow1710NoNo
18754372HETEROJUNCTION CELL AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE AND PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMJune 2024November 2025Allow1731YesNo
18713934SOLAR PANEL USING BACK-CONTACTED SOLAR CELLSMay 2024November 2025Allow1710NoNo
18673365BACK CONTACT SOLAR CELL AND PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULEMay 2024January 2026Allow2010NoNo
18654091SOLAR CELL, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME, PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE, AND PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMMay 2024July 2025Allow1510YesNo
18638581SOLAR CELL AND PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULEApril 2024March 2026Allow2310YesNo
18632192SOLAR CELL AND PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULEApril 2024January 2026Allow2110NoNo
18627556TRANSPORTABLE AND MULTI CONFIGURABLE, MODULAR POWER PLATFORMSApril 2024December 2025Allow2010YesNo
18589434SOLAR CELL COMPONENT, MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICEFebruary 2024November 2025Abandon2101NoNo
18585309SOLAR CELLFebruary 2024October 2025Abandon2010NoNo
18681867SOLAR ENERGY UTILIZATION UNIT AND COMBINED FORMATION THEREOFFebruary 2024December 2025Abandon2210NoNo
18432171Solar ModuleFebruary 2024December 2025Abandon2201NoNo
18405766BUILDING INTEGRATED PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMJanuary 2024June 2025Allow1700NoNo
18400224FIRE RETARDING SYSTEM AND PROTECTIVE LAYERS OR COATINGSDecember 2023November 2025Abandon2310NoNo
18388482SOLAR CELL MODULE AND SOLAR ENERGY POWER SYSTEM WITH ICE-DISSOLVING FUNCTIONNovember 2023December 2025Allow2520NoNo
18455824SOLAR ARRAY ATTACHABLE TO STRUCTURE AND INCLUDING STOWABLE SOLAR MODULEAugust 2023March 2026Abandon3120YesNo
18278000LIGHT SOURCE-TRACKING SOLAR CELL ARRAY, AND SOLAR POWER GENERATION SYSTEM USING SAMEAugust 2023April 2025Allow2010NoNo
18266669CAR BODY PANEL INCLUDING A SOLAR CELL ARRANGEMENT AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAMEJune 2023December 2025Abandon3010NoNo
18251844TANDEM PHOTOVOLTAIC DEVICE COMBINING A SILICON-BASED SUB-CELL AND A PEROVSKITE-BASED SUB-CELL COMPRISING A P- OR N-TYPE MATERIAL/PEROVSKITE COMPOSITE LAYERMay 2023December 2025Allow3121YesNo
18249969THERMOELECTRIC CONVERSION MODULE AND METHOD OF PRODUCING THERMOELECTRIC CONVERSION MODULEApril 2023December 2025Allow3231YesNo
18301736LOW PROFILE SOLAR PANEL AND METHOD OF MANUFACTUREApril 2023July 2025Allow2710NoNo
18248307METHOD FOR ASSEMBLING A PHOTOVOLTAIC STRUCTURE OPERABLE ON AN AQUATIC SURFACEApril 2023January 2026Abandon3321NoNo
17682293SOLAR CELL MODULE HAVING EXCELLENT VISIBILITYFebruary 2022February 2026Abandon4870YesNo
17262686SOLAR MODULE WITH PATTERNED COVER PLATE AND OPTICAL INTERFERENCE LAYERJanuary 2021July 2025Allow5361YesNo
17151068NOVEL PHOTOVOLTAIC PANEL LAYOUT AND INTERCONNECTION SCHEME TO ENABLE LOW VOLTAGE AND HIGH OUTPUT POWER IN AN ENERGY GENERATING PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMJanuary 2021January 2026Abandon6051YesNo
16852175METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR INSULATED GLASS UNITS WITH ELECTRICAL CONNECTION TO INTERNAL SOLAR PANELSApril 2020November 2025Abandon6041YesYes
16715388STACKED MONOLITHIC UPRIGHT METAMORPHIC MULTIJUNCTION SOLAR CELLDecember 2019August 2025Allow6080YesYes
16351856MONOLITHICALLY INTEGRATED THIN-FILM DEVICE WITH A SOLAR CELL, AN INTEGRATED BATTERY, AND A CONTROLLERMarch 2019September 2019Allow600YesNo
15979734ENERGY RECOVERING ASSEMBLY AND A METHOD OF PROVIDING THE SAMEMay 2018October 2018Allow500YesNo
15807633METHOD FOR PROVIDING A HIGH CAPACITY CATHODE MATERIAL WITH IMPROVED RATE CAPABILITY PERFORMANCENovember 2017July 2019Allow2000YesNo
15710644SOLAR CELL MODULESeptember 2017October 2020Allow3750YesNo
15536472AN ENERGY RECOVERING ASSEMBLY AND A METHOD OF PROVIDING THE SAMEJune 2017February 2018Allow801YesNo
15532201SOLAR PANEL SUPPORT UNIT AND SOLAR POWER GENERATION SYSTEMJune 2017August 2019Allow2701YesNo
15010755THERMOELECTRIC GENERATORJanuary 2016January 2020Allow4842YesNo
14400719ROOF PANEL HAVING AN INTEGRATED PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULENovember 2014February 2018Allow3950YesNo
13911935SOLAR CELL USING QUANTUM DOTS AND METHOD OF FABRICATING SAMEJune 2013November 2019Allow6051YesYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CHERN, CHRISTINA.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
1
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
1.6%
Lower than average

What This Means

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.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
3
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(33.3%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(66.7%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
50.8%
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, 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.

Strategic Recommendations

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 CHERN, CHRISTINA - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner CHERN, CHRISTINA works in Art Unit 1722 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 39 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner CHERN, CHRISTINA'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.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by CHERN, CHRISTINA receive 3.23 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 91% 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 CHERN, CHRISTINA is 39 months. This places the examiner in the 26% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 14.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 10% 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 20.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 24% 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 47% 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 below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 0% 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 Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 4% percentile). This examiner rarely makes examiner's amendments compared to other examiners. You should expect to make all necessary claim amendments yourself through formal amendment practice.

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 4% percentile). This examiner rarely issues Quayle actions compared to other examiners. Allowances typically 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.
  • 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.

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.