Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17078546 | DYNAMICALLY UNIFYING DISPARATE USER INTERFACE APPLICATIONS IN A CLOUD NATIVE ENVIRONMENT | October 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 44 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16703708 | METHOD AND APPARATUS CONFIGURED TO MANAGE DRAFT MESSAGING COMMUNICATIONS AND DRAFT MESSAGE INTERFACES IN A GROUP-BASED COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | December 2019 | September 2024 | Abandon | 58 | 6 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16662103 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING AN UPDATED DIGITAL BUILDING MODEL | October 2019 | February 2024 | Allow | 52 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16584200 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A REGISTRATION SYSTEM WITHIN AN INTELLIGENT DIGITAL EXPERIENCE DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM | September 2019 | March 2024 | Allow | 54 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16275487 | COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM, LEARNING METHOD, AND LEARNING APPARATUS | February 2019 | June 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16235930 | SEMANTIC SEGMENTATION OF 2D FLOOR PLANS WITH A PIXEL-WISE CLASSIFIER | December 2018 | April 2024 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner TAN, ALVIN H works in Art Unit 2144 and has examined 6 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 66.7%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 58 months.
Examiner TAN, ALVIN H's allowance rate of 66.7% places them in the 29% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by TAN, ALVIN H receive 4.83 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 TAN, ALVIN H is 58 months. This places the examiner in the 2% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +25.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by TAN, ALVIN H. This interview benefit is in the 70% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 16% 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 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 1% 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.
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.