USPTO Examiner PAN YONGJIA - Art Unit 2118

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17126136SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COLLABORATIVE EDITING AN ELECTRONIC RESOURCE USING CLIENT DEVICE DESIGNATIONSDecember 2020March 2025Allow5180YesNo
16203585APPARATUS, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING IMMUNIZATION DATA TO GENERATE AN EFFICIENT COMPUTER INTERFACENovember 2018December 2024Allow6080YesNo
15615014VISUALLY GENERATED CONSUMER PRODUCT PRESENTATIONJune 2017March 2019Allow2110NoNo
15421976METHOD FOR DISPLAYING INFORMATION, AND TERMINAL EQUIPMENTFebruary 2017January 2018Allow1220YesNo
15418215METHOD FOR DISPLAYING INFORMATION, AND TERMINAL EQUIPMENTJanuary 2017February 2018Allow1220NoNo
15342187IMAGE DATA GENERATION APPARATUS AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUMNovember 2016January 2019Allow2610YesNo
15266716VISUALLY GENERATED CONSUMER PRODUCT PRESENTATIONSeptember 2016May 2017Allow810NoNo
15168410SOCIAL SHARING PATH USER INTERFACE INSIGHTSMay 2016June 2019Allow3630YesNo
14854520Access-Control-Discontinuous Hyperlink Handling System and MethodsSeptember 2015June 2017Allow2120YesNo
14831749METHOD OF TEXT INPUT FOR WEARABLE DEVICESAugust 2015November 2018Allow3930YesNo
14327546SUMMARIZING PORTLET USAGE IN A PORTAL PAGEJuly 2014June 2016Allow2320NoYes
14159254INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS FOR AUTOMATICALLY SWITCHING BETWEEN MODES BASED ON A POSITION OF AN INPUTTED DRAG OPERATIONJanuary 2014August 2017Allow4340YesNo
14153645Topic Categorized Instant Message CommunicationJanuary 2014June 2018Allow5340YesNo
14127661VEHICLE OPERATION DEVICE AND VEHICLE OPERATION METHODDecember 2013April 2019Allow6040YesNo
14052606ARRANGEMENT OF CONTENT ON A LARGE FORMAT DISPLAYOctober 2013October 2017Allow4840YesNo
13926544VISUALLY GENERATED CONSUMER PRODUCT PRESENTATIONJune 2013June 2016Allow3520NoNo

Appeals Overview

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

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
1
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(100.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
95.5%
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, 100.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Strategic Recommendations

Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Examiner PAN, YONGJIA - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner PAN, YONGJIA works in Art Unit 2118 and has examined 16 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 100.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 36 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner PAN, YONGJIA's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 93% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by PAN, YONGJIA receive 3.19 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 87% 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 PAN, YONGJIA is 36 months. This places the examiner in the 35% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by PAN, YONGJIA. This interview benefit is in the 13% percentile among all examiners. Note: Interviews show limited statistical benefit with this examiner compared to others, though they may still be valuable for clarifying issues.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 23.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 34% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 18.8% 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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 88% 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.

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 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 Cooperation and Flexibility

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 9% 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.
  • Appeal filing as negotiation tool: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

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.