Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18404072 | ENDOSCOPE PROCESSOR, PROGRAM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | January 2024 | November 2024 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18487837 | USER INTERFACES FOR A PODCAST BROWSING AND PLAYBACK APPLICATION | October 2023 | May 2024 | Allow | 7 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18471602 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SHARING DATA | September 2023 | April 2025 | Abandon | 18 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18235641 | ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION ACTIVATED AUGMENTED REALITY EXPERIENCES | August 2023 | October 2024 | Allow | 14 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18218311 | Gesture Simulated Interactive Environment | July 2023 | April 2025 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18109758 | SCROLLING USER INTERFACE SYSTEM AND METHOD | February 2023 | April 2025 | Abandon | 26 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18165084 | Finding and Filtering Elements of a Visual Scene | February 2023 | April 2025 | Allow | 26 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18102586 | Using Contextual Recommendations to Present Time-Series Metrics | January 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 29 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18101553 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD AND STORAGE MEDIUM | January 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 29 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18152479 | REMOTE CONTROLLER, DISPLAY APPARATUS FOR SETTING KEYS OF THE REMOTE CONTROLLER, AND METHODS THEREOF | January 2023 | March 2025 | Abandon | 26 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18003873 | SCREEN CAPTURING METHOD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE | December 2022 | January 2025 | Allow | 24 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17956731 | User Interface for Presenting Time Series Metrics | September 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 32 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17956617 | DRAG AND DROP INTERACTIONS FOR A BROWSER SOFTWARE APPLICATION | September 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 31 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17791428 | Interaction Method for Cross-Device Task Processing, Electronic Device, and Storage Medium | July 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 36 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17851505 | AUTOMATIC APPLICATION DEVICE AND AUTOMATIC APPLICATION METHOD | June 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17664683 | AUTOMATED GENERATION OF NETWORK DATA VISUALIZATION DASHBOARDS | May 2022 | September 2024 | Allow | 28 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17743032 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONFIGURING THE GRAPHICAL LAYOUT OF AT LEAST ONE MULTI-VIEWER DISPLAY | May 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17733960 | DYNAMICALLY USER-CONFIGURABLE INTERFACE FOR A COMMUNICATION SESSION | April 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 38 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17638397 | SPLIT-SCREEN PROCESSING METHOD AND TERMINAL DEVICE | February 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 37 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17668479 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, CONTROL APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD, METHOD OF CONTROLLING CONTROL APPARATUS, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | February 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17554047 | USER INTERFACE LAYOUT METHOD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE | December 2021 | December 2024 | Allow | 36 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17526019 | POWER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, POWER DEMAND-SUPPLY MANAGEMENT APPARATUS, AND POWER DEMAND-SUPPLY MANAGEMENT METHOD | November 2021 | September 2024 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17343356 | SPLICE AND PATCH PANEL GUI FOR CABLE LAYOUT AND DESIGN | June 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17331567 | Shared Content Presentation With Integrated Messaging | May 2021 | December 2024 | Abandon | 43 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16597601 | COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD FOR SELECTING AN ITEM FROM A LIST | October 2019 | January 2025 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13899185 | TREEMAP PERSPECTIVE MANIPULATION | May 2013 | February 2017 | Allow | 45 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner OLSHANNIKOV, ALEKSEY.
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.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner OLSHANNIKOV, ALEKSEY works in Art Unit 2118 and has examined 25 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 68.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 32 months.
Examiner OLSHANNIKOV, ALEKSEY's allowance rate of 68.0% places them in the 22% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by OLSHANNIKOV, ALEKSEY receive 3.24 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 OLSHANNIKOV, ALEKSEY is 32 months. This places the examiner in the 31% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +73.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by OLSHANNIKOV, ALEKSEY. This interview benefit is in the 99% 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, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 8% 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 17.9% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 13% 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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 87% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 1% 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 8% 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 8% percentile). This examiner rarely issues Quayle actions compared to other examiners. Allowances typically come directly without a separate action for formal matters.
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.