USPTO Examiner CALDERON SANTIAGO ALVARO RAFAEL - Art Unit 2171

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18160477SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONSOLIDATION AND AUTOMATED DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATIONJuly 2024February 2025Abandon2520NoNo
18609996TEMPORARILY HIDING USER INTERFACE ELEMENTSMarch 2024February 2025Allow1000NoNo
18396053PROMPT METHOD AND APPARATUS BASED ON DOCUMENT SHARING, DEVICE, AND MEDIUMDecember 2023June 2025Allow1730NoNo
18479618IMAGE PATTERN MATCHING TO ROBOTIC PROCESS AUTOMATIONSOctober 2023September 2024Allow1210YesNo
18240342USER INTERFACE FOR MANAGING RETARGETING OF DASHBOARD CONTENTAugust 2023June 2025Allow2200NoNo
18214559Controllable Diffusion Model based Image Gallery Recommendation ServiceJune 2023February 2025Allow2020YesNo
18210453SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INTERACTING WITH COMPUTING DEVICEJune 2023March 2025Abandon2110NoNo
18322581VISUAL ASSIST CHATBOT FOR IMPROVED ACCESSIBILITY OF CONTENT BY A VISUALLY IMPAIRED USERMay 2023November 2024Allow1820YesNo
18303180ELECTRONIC DEVICE HAVING DISPLAY MAGNIFICATION FUNCTION, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE OPERATION METHODApril 2023October 2024Allow1810YesNo
18295938Method and System for Displaying a Cursor on a Trading ScreenApril 2023July 2024Abandon1510NoNo
18123350REDIRECTING APPLICATIONS BETWEEN REMOTE DESKTOPSMarch 2023January 2025Allow2230YesNo
18110523DYNAMIC MODIFICATIONS OF DISPLAYED PAGES TO INTRODUCE NEW WIDGETSFebruary 2023April 2025Allow2630YesNo
18100539Updating Available Features Based on Server CompatibilityJanuary 2023December 2023Allow1100YesNo
18092299INTELLIGENT KNOWLEDGE GRAPH TO FACILITATE USER INPUT INTO GUI FORMSDecember 2022February 2025Abandon2540YesNo
17991943METHOD FOR GENERATING MULTIMEDIA DATA ASSOCIATED WITH A SYSTEM FOR PRACTICING SPORTSNovember 2022October 2024Abandon2230NoNo
17977993WINDOW ARRANGEMENT METHOD AND WINDOW ARRANGEMENT SYSTEMOctober 2022September 2024Allow2320YesNo
17916259SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING INTERACTIVE PARTICIPATION-TYPE DRAWING MAKING SERVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE SAMESeptember 2022July 2024Allow2110YesNo
17820657JOINT EMBEDDING CONTENT NEURAL NETWORKSAugust 2022May 2024Allow2120YesNo
17867588METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ADJUSTING PERSPECTIVE OF DIRECTION INDICATOR, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUMJuly 2022April 2025Allow3320NoNo
17855235WINDOW ARRANGEMENTS USING TABBED USER INTERFACE ELEMENTSJune 2022July 2024Allow2420YesNo
17752986APPLICATION SHARING METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUMMay 2022March 2025Abandon3340NoNo
17674092SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INTERACTIVE EXPERIENCES AND CONTROLLERS THEREFORFebruary 2022November 2024Abandon3310NoNo
17671020METHOD FOR CONNECTING MOBILE TERMINAL AND EXTERNAL DISPLAY AND APPARATUS IMPLEMENTING THE SAMEFebruary 2022March 2025Allow3770YesNo
17634519PROVIDING ASSISTIVE USER INTERFACES USING EXECUTION BLOCKSFebruary 2022March 2024Allow2520YesNo
17550095SCREEN CAPTURE HINT AND AUTOMATED SCREEN CAPTUREDecember 2021April 2025Allow4050YesNo
17548141GENERATING ARTWORK TUTORIALSDecember 2021April 2024Allow2820YesNo
17546630TECHNIQUES FOR MANAGING DISPLAY USAGEDecember 2021August 2024Allow3230YesYes
17530279SCROLL-BASED AUTOMATIC FIELD COMPLETIONNovember 2021April 2025Allow4110YesNo
17496273DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT FOR GENERATION OF AUTOMATED CONTROL PATHWAYSOctober 2021May 2024Allow3100YesNo
17493274SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INTERFACE DISPLAY SCREEN MANIPULATIONOctober 2021March 2025Allow4250YesNo
17365170User Interface with Configurable Specification of Related Data SourcesJuly 2021August 2024Abandon3740YesNo
17361034PAGE GUIDING METHODS, APPARATUSES, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICESJune 2021May 2024Allow3420YesYes
17303984USER INTERFACE ACCESSIBILITY NAVIGATION GUIDEJune 2021August 2024Abandon3860NoNo
17341121USER INTERFACES FOR CALIBRATIONS AND/OR SYNCHRONIZATIONSJune 2021April 2025Allow4660YesYes
17336878TEMPORARILY HIDING USER INTERFACE ELEMENTSJune 2021December 2023Allow3131YesNo
17336346RECORDING CONVERSATION OF USER FOR IDENTIFYING CONTEXTUAL KEYWORDS OR KEY PHRASES FOR IDENTIFYING USER RELEVANT CONTENTS OR MEDIA OR POSTSJune 2021December 2023Abandon3020YesNo
17322375HEART-LUNG MACHINE WITH SIMPLIFIED SETUP BASED ON ROLE-PROFILE MAPPINGMay 2021May 2025Allow4820NoNo
17238942USER INTERFACE WITH METADATA CONTENT ELEMENTS FOR VIDEO NAVIGATIONApril 2021June 2024Abandon3840YesNo
17239257TECHNIQUES FOR MANIPULATING COMPUTER-GENERATED OBJECTSApril 2021July 2024Allow3930YesNo
17101223Reverse Seamless Integration Between Local and Remote Computing EnvironmentsNovember 2020March 2024Abandon4030NoNo
17015944INTERACTIVE PRESENTATION CONTROLSSeptember 2020June 2024Allow4540NoNo
16902939TECHNIQUES FOR TRANSFERRING DATA WITHIN AND BETWEEN COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTSJune 2020August 2024Abandon5050YesNo
16903101AUDIO ASSOCIATIONS FOR INTERACTIVE MEDIA EVENT TRIGGERINGJune 2020July 2024Allow4940YesYes
16836255REPLY BACK MECHANISM WITHIN A MESSAGING SYSTEMMarch 2020June 2024Allow5180YesNo
15857599FRAMEWORK OF PROACTIVE AND/OR REACTIVE STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING LABELING CONSISTENCY AND EFFICIENCYDecember 2017May 2024Allow6040YesNo
14899922NON-INTERFERING MULTI-APPLICATION DISPLAY METHOD AND AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE THEREOFDecember 2015June 2019Allow4230YesNo
14925272COMPUTING DEVICE HAVING USER-INPUT ACCESSORYOctober 2015November 2024Allow60101YesYes
14842410VIDEO-BASED INTERACTIVE VIEWING ALONG A PATH IN MEDICAL IMAGINGSeptember 2015October 2018Allow3721YesNo
14099690MOBILE TERMINAL AND CORRESPONDING METHOD FOR CONTROLLING DIVIDED ITEMS IN LISTDecember 2013June 2016Allow3120NoNo
13843270REVERSE BRAND SORTING TOOLS FOR INTEREST-GRAPH DRIVEN PERSONALIZATIONMarch 2013December 2017Allow5750YesNo
13606401PROVIDING CONTENT ITEM MANIPULATION ACTIONS ON AN UPLOAD WEB PAGE OF THE CONTENT ITEMSeptember 2012August 2016Allow4750YesNo
13358275INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING THE SAMEJanuary 2012February 2014Allow2510NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CALDERON SANTIAGO, ALVARO RAFAEL.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
3
Examiner Affirmed
1
(33.3%)
Examiner Reversed
2
(66.7%)
Reversal Percentile
86.0%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 66.7% 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.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
5
Allowed After Appeal Filing
4
(80.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(20.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
94.4%
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, 80.0% 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 CALDERON SANTIAGO, ALVARO RAFAEL - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner CALDERON SANTIAGO, ALVARO RAFAEL works in Art Unit 2171 and has examined 51 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 74.5%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 32 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner CALDERON SANTIAGO, ALVARO RAFAEL's allowance rate of 74.5% places them in the 31% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by CALDERON SANTIAGO, ALVARO RAFAEL receive 3.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 95% 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by CALDERON SANTIAGO, ALVARO RAFAEL is 32 months. This places the examiner in the 31% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +39.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CALDERON SANTIAGO, ALVARO RAFAEL. This interview benefit is in the 89% 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, 23.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 24% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 3.3% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

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 51% 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 62.5% of appeals filed. This is in the 35% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 20.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 54.5% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 68% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.

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 12% 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:

  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • 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.

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.