Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17107782 | DECODING RANDOM FOREST PROBLEM SOLVING THROUGH NODE LABELING AND SUBTREE DISTRIBUTIONS | November 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17106026 | FEEDBACK-BASED TRAINING FOR ANOMALY DETECTION | November 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17092140 | COMPUTERIZED ASSESSMENT OF ARTICLES WITH SIMILAR CONTENT AND HIGHLIGHTING OF DISTINCTIONS THEREBETWEEN | November 2020 | July 2024 | Abandon | 44 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16990505 | PERSONALIZED MEDIA PREVIEW INTERFACE | August 2020 | May 2024 | Allow | 45 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16927931 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM FOR DISPLAYING INFORMATION DUE TO MODIFICATION ON DOCUMENT ELEMENT | July 2020 | July 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16838941 | CONTENT AGGREGATION AND DATA STREAMING THROUGH UNIFIED APPLICATION FUNCTIONALITIES | April 2020 | July 2024 | Abandon | 51 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16780876 | EXPLORATORY DATA INTERFACE | February 2020 | December 2023 | Allow | 46 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16674375 | REFERENCING MULTIPLE UNIFORM RESOURCE LOCATORS WITH COGNITIVE HYPERLINKS | November 2019 | June 2024 | Abandon | 56 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16589051 | READER MODE-OPTIMIZED ATTENTION APPLICATION | September 2019 | December 2023 | Allow | 50 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16583372 | IDENTIFYING REFERENCE DATA IN A SOURCE DATA SET | September 2019 | April 2024 | Allow | 54 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15703635 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATICALLY REFORMATTING PUBLICATIONS | September 2017 | January 2024 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15112687 | USER INTERFACE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A VOLUME BY MEANS OF A TOUCH-SENSITIVE DISPLAY UNIT | October 2016 | July 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ROY, SANCHITA.
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 ROY, SANCHITA works in Art Unit 2143 and has examined 12 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 58.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 50 months.
Examiner ROY, SANCHITA's allowance rate of 58.3% places them in the 20% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by ROY, SANCHITA receive 4.58 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 98% 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 ROY, SANCHITA is 50 months. This places the examiner in the 7% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +10.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ROY, SANCHITA. This interview benefit is in the 43% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 11.8% 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 8.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 9% 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.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 66.7% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 54% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. If you have strong arguments, a PAC request may result in favorable reconsideration.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 16% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 10% 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 11% 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.