Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18611418 | ASYNCHRONOUS DISTRIBUTED DATA TRANSFER SYSTEM | March 2024 | December 2024 | Allow | 9 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18466808 | TOOL FOR GENERATING A VIRTUAL STORE THAT EMULATES A PHYSICAL STORE | September 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18236133 | METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND MEDIA FOR NAVIGATING A USER INTERFACE USING DIRECTIONAL CONTROLS | August 2023 | December 2024 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18038789 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR FINDING WEARABLE DEVICE | May 2023 | December 2024 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18198631 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND MULTI-WINDOW CONTROL METHOD OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE | May 2023 | February 2025 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18192763 | IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD FOR DISPLAYING THE AMOUNT OF A CONSUMABLE ITEM | March 2023 | September 2024 | Allow | 17 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18042232 | Screen Window Redrawing Method, Electronic Device, and Computer-Readable Storage Medium | February 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18089215 | CONTROL DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD FOR MAINTAINING THE PRODUCTION OF PRODUCT WITH STABLE QUALITY | December 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 30 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17969197 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING AND OPERATING FOLDABLE DISPLAY | October 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 29 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17963028 | PROVIDING CUSTOM MACHINE-LEARNING MODELS | October 2022 | June 2024 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17807662 | CONTEXT SURFACING IN COLLECTIONS | June 2022 | September 2024 | Allow | 27 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17806901 | MEDICINE INJECTION AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS | June 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17753306 | System and Method for GUI Development and Deployment in a Real Time System | February 2022 | December 2024 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17563352 | INTERACTIVE GRAPHICAL USER-INTERFACE FOR BUILDING NETWORKS OF TIME SERIES | December 2021 | December 2024 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17548377 | SWEEP ALGORITHM FOR OUTPUT OF GRAPHICAL OBJECTS | December 2021 | September 2024 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17537466 | DYNAMIC FINGERPRINTS FOR ROBOTIC PROCESS AUTOMATION | November 2021 | October 2023 | Abandon | 22 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17601504 | DISPLAY DEVICE FOR DISPLAYING A PREVIEW VIDEO BASED ON PAST PLAYBACK INFORMATION | October 2021 | September 2024 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17471368 | LINKING GRAPH | September 2021 | March 2025 | Allow | 42 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17469908 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATION OF AN AUTOMATION SYSTEM COMPONENT WITH MULTIPLE INFORMATION SOURCES | September 2021 | October 2024 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17279969 | MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION ON MODELING AND OPTIMIZING SCALING AND CORROSION IN A WELLBORE | March 2021 | June 2025 | Allow | 51 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15680875 | Active Context Information for an Object and Contextually Associated Objects | August 2017 | June 2019 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15429359 | INTERACTIVE ELECTRONICALLY PRESENTED MAP | February 2017 | May 2019 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15390776 | Interactive electronically presented map | December 2016 | March 2019 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15298088 | ELECTRONIC PICTURE BOOK WHICH SEQUENTIALLY CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO SCROLL OPERATION | October 2016 | November 2018 | Allow | 25 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12109639 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REAL-TIME SCHEDULING | April 2008 | February 2014 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12043234 | APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING INDICATION OF AUDIO COPY PROTECTION SUPPORT | March 2008 | September 2011 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12043602 | MANAGING MULTIPLE AND/OR REPEATED OUT OF OFFICE NOTIFICATION PERIODS | March 2008 | March 2013 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11845808 | UTILIZING MOOD SENSORS IN AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGING ENVIRONMENT | August 2007 | March 2012 | Allow | 55 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11846230 | SYSTEMS, METHODS AND COMPUTER PRODUCTS TO AUTOMATICALLY COMPLETE A GUI TASK | August 2007 | December 2010 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10185343 | Indicating the context of a communication | June 2002 | November 2012 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner TAN, ALVIN H.
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, 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.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner TAN, ALVIN H works in Art Unit 2118 and has examined 29 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 96.6%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 30 months.
Examiner TAN, ALVIN H's allowance rate of 96.6% places them in the 89% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by TAN, ALVIN H receive 2.34 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 80% 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 TAN, ALVIN H is 30 months. This places the examiner in the 40% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -4.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by TAN, ALVIN H. This interview benefit is in the 4% 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.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 34.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 72% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 63.6% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 85% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 11% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 80.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 92% 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 3.4% of allowed cases (in the 84% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
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.