Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18631372 | SYSTEM FOR ENABLING WORKSPACE SHARING | April 2024 | February 2025 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18584899 | LIVE LOCATION SHARING | February 2024 | March 2025 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18436884 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DYNAMIC PROFILE PHOTOS | February 2024 | April 2025 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18413623 | GENERATING A VIRTUAL REALITY LEARNING ENVIRONMENT | January 2024 | January 2025 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18513488 | SURFACING RELEVANT TOPICS IN A GROUP-BASED COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | November 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18127955 | PATIENT SUPPORT SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ASSISTING CAREGIVERS WITH PATIENT CARE | March 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 18152691 | COMPUTER VISION TO DEPICT USER INPUT TO ONE DEVICE AT ANOTHER DEVICE | January 2023 | April 2025 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17930507 | GENERATING AND MODIFYING A COLLECTION CONTENT ITEM FOR ORGANIZING AND PRESENTING CONTENT ITEMS | September 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 33 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17893493 | Minimized Bandwidth Requirements for Transmitting Mobile HMD Gaze Data | August 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17816337 | INTERACTIVE CHART USING A DATA PROCESSING PACKAGE | July 2022 | December 2024 | Allow | 28 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17835288 | APPLICATION CONTROL METHOD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE | June 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17692918 | NETWORK DATA OBJECT PROCESSING SYSTEM WITH INTERDEPENDENCE IDENTIFICATION ENGINE AND MULTI-CAROUSEL INTERFACE | March 2022 | July 2024 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17688659 | GRADIENT DESCENT TRAINING FOR DEFENSIBLE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | March 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17583280 | Guided Collaborative Viewing of Navigable Image Content | January 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 37 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 17513291 | GUI ELEMENT ACQUISITION USING A PLURALITY OF ALTERNATIVE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE GUI ELEMENT | October 2021 | May 2025 | Allow | 42 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17490769 | OPTIMIZING CIRCUIT COMPILER FOR TRAPPED-ION QUANTUM COMPUTERS | September 2021 | March 2025 | Allow | 42 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17485643 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REPLACING A STORED VERSION OF MEDIA WITH A VERSION BETTER SUITED FOR A USER | September 2021 | July 2024 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17411802 | SECURITY / AUTOMATION SYSTEM CONTROL PANEL GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE | August 2021 | March 2025 | Allow | 43 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17400094 | SRAM-SHARING FOR RECONFIGURABLE NEURAL PROCESSING UNITS | August 2021 | May 2025 | Allow | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17384197 | SPECTRAL CLUSTERING OF HIGH-DIMENSIONAL DATA | July 2021 | March 2025 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17350084 | ROBOTIC PROCESS AUTOMATION | June 2021 | September 2024 | Allow | 39 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17315878 | DEVICE AND COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD FOR MACHINE LEARNING | May 2021 | June 2025 | Abandon | 50 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17280932 | EVENT-BASED PROCESSING USING THE OUTPUT OF A DEEP NEURAL NETWORK | March 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 44 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17272540 | Spiking Neuron Device and Combinatorial Optimization Problem Calculation Device | March 2021 | August 2024 | Allow | 42 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17269992 | IMAGE GENERATION DEVICE, ROBOT TRAINING SYSTEM, IMAGE GENERATION METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | February 2021 | January 2025 | Allow | 47 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17268777 | Optical Signal Processing Device | February 2021 | November 2024 | Allow | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17151222 | METHOD FOR DIFFERENTIABLE ARCHITECTURE SEARCH BASED ON A HIERARCHICAL GROUPING MECHANISM | January 2021 | November 2024 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17109835 | ITERATIVE MACHINE LEARNING AND RELEARNING | December 2020 | February 2025 | Allow | 51 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17103833 | EFFICIENT TEMPORAL MEMORY FOR SPARSE BINARY SEQUENCES | November 2020 | September 2024 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15458653 | SYSTEM AND METHOD TO REVISE VERTICAL PROFILE OF A FLIGHT PLAN | March 2017 | June 2019 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15338725 | SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND MOBILE DEVICES FOR PROVIDING A USER INTERFACE TO FACILITATE ACCESS TO PREPAID WIRELESS ACCOUNT INFORMATION | October 2016 | August 2019 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14925450 | MOBILE TERMINAL AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE SAME | October 2015 | September 2018 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14918633 | AUTOMATED MODIFICATION OF GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACES | October 2015 | June 2019 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14489376 | BACKGROUND RELOADING OF CURRENTLY DISPLAYED CONTENT | September 2014 | April 2018 | Allow | 43 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14083799 | METHOD OF DISPLAYING LOCATION OF A DEVICE | November 2013 | January 2018 | Allow | 50 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13671783 | VIRTUAL MEETINGS | November 2012 | June 2017 | Allow | 55 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 13661230 | VIRTUAL MEETINGS | October 2012 | June 2017 | Allow | 56 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13550716 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SEARCHING THROUGH A GRAPHIC USER INTERFACE | July 2012 | November 2014 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CHIUSANO, ANDREW TSUTOMU.
With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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.
✓ Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner CHIUSANO, ANDREW TSUTOMU works in Art Unit 2144 and has examined 34 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 88.2%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.
Examiner CHIUSANO, ANDREW TSUTOMU's allowance rate of 88.2% places them in the 65% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by CHIUSANO, ANDREW TSUTOMU receive 2.41 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 82% 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 CHIUSANO, ANDREW TSUTOMU is 42 months. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +9.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CHIUSANO, ANDREW TSUTOMU. 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, 30.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 50% 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.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 17.4% 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 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 12% 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.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 9% 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 10% 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.