Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17109072 | MODEL TRAINING METHOD, MEDIA INFORMATION SYNTHESIS METHOD, AND RELATED APPARATUSES | December 2020 | December 2024 | Allow | 49 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17075517 | TEXT EDITING IN REMOTE DOCUMENTS ON MOBILE DEVICES | October 2020 | September 2024 | Allow | 47 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17041336 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR KEEPING STATISTICAL INFERENCE ACCURACY WITH 8-BIT WINOGRAD CONVOLUTION | September 2020 | June 2025 | Allow | 56 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16964150 | CURSOR LOCATION ON A NAVIGATIONAL MAP | July 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 55 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16731907 | System and Method of a Customer Management System | December 2019 | March 2025 | Allow | 60 | 12 | 0 | No | No |
| 16520792 | METHOD, SYSTEM AND COMPUTER DEVICE FOR CONVERTING NEURAL NETWORK INFORMATION | July 2019 | April 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16142868 | Automatic Digital Asset Sharing Suggestions | September 2018 | May 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14056078 | SINGLE PAGE MULTI-TIER CATALOG BROWSER | October 2013 | February 2016 | Allow | 28 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12984117 | SINGLE PAGE MULTI-TIER CATALOG BROWSER | January 2011 | July 2013 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12761137 | MOBILE TERMINAL AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING APPLICATIONS OF THE SAME | April 2010 | February 2016 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 12555392 | OPERATIONS DASHBOARD | September 2009 | January 2016 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12334850 | SYSTEM AND METHOD TO VISUALIZE ACTIVITIES THROUGH THE USE OF AVATARS | December 2008 | February 2015 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11480727 | METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR INTERACTIVE MAP-BASED ANALYSIS OF DIGITAL VIDEO CONTENT | July 2006 | September 2013 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11475884 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PRINTING FILE USING TOOLBAR BUTTON | June 2006 | May 2012 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | 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 WONG, WILLIAM works in Art Unit 2144 and has examined 14 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 78.6%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 10000 months.
Examiner WONG, WILLIAM's allowance rate of 78.6% places them in the 48% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by WONG, WILLIAM receive 4.64 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 WONG, WILLIAM is 10000 months. This places the examiner in the 0% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +15.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by WONG, WILLIAM. This interview benefit is in the 54% 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, 13.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 10% 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 4.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 6% 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.