USPTO Examiner CHIUSANO ANDREW TSUTOMU - Art Unit 2144

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18631372SYSTEM FOR ENABLING WORKSPACE SHARINGApril 2024February 2025Allow1010NoNo
18610490PORTABLE TERMINAL DEVICEMarch 2024July 2025Allow1610YesNo
18584899LIVE LOCATION SHARINGFebruary 2024March 2025Allow1210NoNo
18436884SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DYNAMIC PROFILE PHOTOSFebruary 2024April 2025Allow1410NoNo
18413623GENERATING A VIRTUAL REALITY LEARNING ENVIRONMENTJanuary 2024January 2025Allow1210NoNo
18515454IMAGE BASED PAIRING SYSTEMNovember 2023March 2026Abandon2730NoNo
18513488SURFACING RELEVANT TOPICS IN A GROUP-BASED COMMUNICATION SYSTEMNovember 2023June 2025Allow1920YesNo
18127955PATIENT SUPPORT SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ASSISTING CAREGIVERS WITH PATIENT CAREMarch 2023June 2025Allow2711NoNo
18152691COMPUTER VISION TO DEPICT USER INPUT TO ONE DEVICE AT ANOTHER DEVICEJanuary 2023April 2025Allow2710NoNo
18148980PROVIDING SHARED CONTENT COLLECTIONS WITHIN A MESSAGING SYSTEMDecember 2022July 2025Allow3130NoNo
18147340CONTENT-BASED MENUS FOR TABBED USER INTERFACEDecember 2022October 2025Allow3420YesNo
17930507GENERATING AND MODIFYING A COLLECTION CONTENT ITEM FOR ORGANIZING AND PRESENTING CONTENT ITEMSSeptember 2022June 2025Allow3340YesNo
17902638DEFINING AN INTERACTIVE SESSION THAT ANALYZES USER INPUT PROVIDED BY A PARTICIPANTSeptember 2022November 2025Abandon3910NoNo
17896590CONTRASTIVE TIME SERIES REPRESENTATION LEARNING VIA META-LEARNINGAugust 2022February 2026Allow4110YesNo
17893493Minimized Bandwidth Requirements for Transmitting Mobile HMD Gaze DataAugust 2022June 2025Abandon3440YesNo
17816337INTERACTIVE CHART USING A DATA PROCESSING PACKAGEJuly 2022December 2024Allow2830NoNo
17810201QUANTUM GATE PROTOCOL FOR THE EXECUTION OF SPIN LOCKING ONTO SUPERCONDUCTING QUBIT ARCHITECTURESJune 2022October 2025Allow4000NoNo
17835288APPLICATION CONTROL METHOD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICEJune 2022May 2025Abandon3540NoNo
17723342APPLICATION RATING AND FEEDBACKApril 2022October 2025Abandon4260YesNo
17692918NETWORK DATA OBJECT PROCESSING SYSTEM WITH INTERDEPENDENCE IDENTIFICATION ENGINE AND MULTI-CAROUSEL INTERFACEMarch 2022July 2024Allow2921YesNo
17691069APPARATUS AND PARTICULARLY COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD FOR NON-DETERMINISTIC TECHNICAL SYSTEMSMarch 2022February 2026Allow4720NoNo
17688659GRADIENT DESCENT TRAINING FOR DEFENSIBLE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCEMarch 2022May 2025Allow3810NoNo
17675442SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SAMPLE EFFICIENT TRAINING OF MACHINE LEARNING MODELSFebruary 2022March 2026Allow4820YesNo
17670736MACHINE LEARNING SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR POURBAIX DIAGRAM DESCRIPTOR-BASED PREDICTION OF ELETROCHEMICAL FIGURES OF MERITFebruary 2022December 2025Abandon4610NoNo
17583280Guided Collaborative Viewing of Navigable Image ContentJanuary 2022February 2025Allow3750NoNo
17644488SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPLEMENTING ALL-TO-ALL CONNECTIVITY IN GATE-BASED QUANTUM COMPUTERS USING NEAREST-NEIGHBOR INTERACTIONSDecember 2021August 2025Allow4400NoNo
17541823ACTIVE LEARNING DRIFT ANALYSIS AND TRAININGDecember 2021December 2025Allow4820YesNo
17612768COUPLING MULTIPLE ARTIFICIALLY LEARNING UNITS WITH A PROJECTION LEVELNovember 2021March 2026Allow5210NoNo
17519163SYNAPSE ARRAY OF A NEUROMORPHIC DEVICE INCLUDING A SYNAPSE ARRAY HAVING A PLURALITY OF FERROELECTRICITY FIELD EFFECT TRANSISTORSNovember 2021November 2025Abandon4910NoNo
17518107Importance Sampling via Machine Learning (ML)-Based Gradient ApproximationNovember 2021March 2026Abandon5220NoNo
17513291GUI ELEMENT ACQUISITION USING A PLURALITY OF ALTERNATIVE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE GUI ELEMENTOctober 2021May 2025Allow4230NoYes
17491777DATA CLUSTERING FOR NETWORK TRAFFIC MODELINGOctober 2021February 2026Allow5230YesNo
17492391NONLINEAR AUTOREGRESSIVE EXOGENOUS (NARX) MODELLING FOR POWER ELECTRONIC DEVICE MODELLINGOctober 2021December 2025Abandon5010NoNo
17490769OPTIMIZING CIRCUIT COMPILER FOR TRAPPED-ION QUANTUM COMPUTERSSeptember 2021March 2025Allow4200NoNo
17490352AUTOMATED GENERATION OF A MACHINE LEARNING MODEL FROM COMPUTATIONAL SIMULATION DATASeptember 2021February 2026Allow5220YesNo
17488261DYNAMIC QUANTIZATION FOR ENERGY EFFICIENT DEEP LEARNINGSeptember 2021September 2025Allow4820YesNo
17485643SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REPLACING A STORED VERSION OF MEDIA WITH A VERSION BETTER SUITED FOR A USERSeptember 2021July 2024Allow3430YesNo
17486798REUSE OF MACHINE LEARNING MODELSSeptember 2021January 2026Allow5230YesNo
17481557RECOMMENDATION APPARATUSSeptember 2021November 2025Abandon4920NoNo
17446537MACHINE LEARNING MODEL SELECTION BASED ON FEATURE MERGING FOR A SPATIAL LOCATION ACROSS MULTIPLE TIME WINDOWSAugust 2021February 2026Allow5330NoNo
17411802SECURITY / AUTOMATION SYSTEM CONTROL PANEL GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACEAugust 2021March 2025Allow4340YesNo
17400094SRAM-SHARING FOR RECONFIGURABLE NEURAL PROCESSING UNITSAugust 2021May 2025Allow4510NoNo
17384563SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CREATING A KNOWLEDGE GRAPHJuly 2021November 2025Allow5220YesNo
17384197SPECTRAL CLUSTERING OF HIGH-DIMENSIONAL DATAJuly 2021March 2025Allow4410YesNo
17350084ROBOTIC PROCESS AUTOMATIONJune 2021September 2024Allow3950YesNo
17331938Fully Explainable Document Classification Method And SystemMay 2021November 2025Abandon5320NoNo
17315878DEVICE AND COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD FOR MACHINE LEARNINGMay 2021June 2025Abandon5020NoNo
17280932EVENT-BASED PROCESSING USING THE OUTPUT OF A DEEP NEURAL NETWORKMarch 2021November 2024Abandon4410NoNo
17277623LEARNING-TYPE REAL SPACE INFORMATION FORMATION SYSTEMMarch 2021January 2026Allow5830YesNo
17272540Spiking Neuron Device and Combinatorial Optimization Problem Calculation DeviceMarch 2021August 2024Allow4200NoNo
17186792PROVIDER PERFORMANCE SCORING USING SUPERVISED AND UNSUPERVISED LEARNINGFebruary 2021July 2025Allow5320YesNo
17185045DETECTING ASSOCIATED EVENTSFebruary 2021December 2025Allow5740YesNo
17269992IMAGE GENERATION DEVICE, ROBOT TRAINING SYSTEM, IMAGE GENERATION METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUMFebruary 2021January 2025Allow4720NoNo
17268777Optical Signal Processing DeviceFebruary 2021November 2024Allow4510NoNo
17153282METHOD AND APPARATUS WITH NEURAL ARCHITECTURE SEARCH BASED ON HARDWARE PERFORMANCEJanuary 2021September 2025Allow5630YesNo
17151222METHOD FOR DIFFERENTIABLE ARCHITECTURE SEARCH BASED ON A HIERARCHICAL GROUPING MECHANISMJanuary 2021November 2024Allow4620YesNo
17109835ITERATIVE MACHINE LEARNING AND RELEARNINGDecember 2020February 2025Allow5120YesNo
17103833EFFICIENT TEMPORAL MEMORY FOR SPARSE BINARY SEQUENCESNovember 2020September 2024Allow4620NoNo
16692261ENHANCED VIEWS AND NOTIFICATIONS OF LOCATION AND CALENDAR INFORMATIONNovember 2019March 2026Allow6050YesYes
16595294WorkMerk FlowchartOctober 2019November 2025Abandon6051NoNo
15458653SYSTEM AND METHOD TO REVISE VERTICAL PROFILE OF A FLIGHT PLANMarch 2017June 2019Allow2710NoNo
15338725SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND MOBILE DEVICES FOR PROVIDING A USER INTERFACE TO FACILITATE ACCESS TO PREPAID WIRELESS ACCOUNT INFORMATIONOctober 2016August 2019Allow3310YesNo
14925450MOBILE TERMINAL AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE SAMEOctober 2015September 2018Allow3410NoNo
14918633AUTOMATED MODIFICATION OF GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACESOctober 2015June 2019Allow4430YesNo
14489376BACKGROUND RELOADING OF CURRENTLY DISPLAYED CONTENTSeptember 2014April 2018Allow4330YesNo
14083799METHOD OF DISPLAYING LOCATION OF A DEVICENovember 2013January 2018Allow5040YesNo
13671783VIRTUAL MEETINGSNovember 2012June 2017Allow5550NoNo
13661230VIRTUAL MEETINGSOctober 2012June 2017Allow5670YesNo
13550716SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SEARCHING THROUGH A GRAPHIC USER INTERFACEJuly 2012November 2014Allow2810NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CHIUSANO, ANDREW TSUTOMU.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
2
Examiner Affirmed
1
(50.0%)
Examiner Reversed
1
(50.0%)
Reversal Percentile
71.7%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 50.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is above the USPTO average, indicating that appeals have better success here than typical.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
2
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(50.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(50.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
78.2%
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, 50.0% 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

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 - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner CHIUSANO, ANDREW TSUTOMU works in Art Unit 2144 and has examined 44 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 81.8%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 49 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner CHIUSANO, ANDREW TSUTOMU's allowance rate of 81.8% places them in the 53% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by CHIUSANO, ANDREW TSUTOMU receive 2.34 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 66% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by CHIUSANO, ANDREW TSUTOMU is 49 months. This places the examiner in the 6% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +36.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CHIUSANO, ANDREW TSUTOMU. This interview benefit is in the 84% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 34.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 77% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 15.4% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 17% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 6% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 16% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 90% 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 Cooperation and Flexibility

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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.
  • 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.
  • RCEs are effective: This examiner has a high allowance rate after RCE compared to others. If you receive a final rejection and have substantive amendments or arguments, an RCE is likely to be successful.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

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.