USPTO Examiner AYAD MARIA S - Art Unit 2172

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18585668Academic Editing Engine(s) For Attribution And Revision Of Scholarly AuthoringFebruary 2024February 2026Allow2400YesNo
18538338IDENTIFYING OCCLUDED AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTS FOR AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONSDecember 2023March 2026Allow2710YesNo
184710563D PAINTING ON AN EYEWEAR DEVICESeptember 2023June 2025Allow2030YesNo
18130081DASHBOARD WITH RELATIONSHIP GRAPHINGApril 2023May 2025Abandon2530YesNo
18097718DRONE-ASSISTED VEHICLE EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEMJanuary 2023January 2026Allow3610YesNo
18014528METHOD AND CONTROLLER FOR CONTROLLING A MOTOR VEHICLEJanuary 2023October 2025Abandon3320YesNo
18092129ISSUE TRACKING SYSTEM HAVING A VIRTUAL MEETING SYSTEM FOR FACILITATING A VIRTUAL MEETING IN A THREE-DIMENSIONAL VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTDecember 2022May 2025Allow2930YesNo
18084982VEHICLE LIGHTING CONTROL DEVICEDecember 2022October 2025Abandon3420YesNo
18007597DYNAMIC LIFT-OFF CONTROL DEVICE, AND CRANEDecember 2022February 2026Allow3920YesNo
17958177METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR HAND GESTURE-BASED CONTROL OF SELECTION FOCUSSeptember 2022May 2025Abandon3140NoNo
17862381CURSOR CONTROL METHOD AND CURSOR CONTROL DEVICE WHICH CAN IMPROVE CURSOR MOVEMENT RANGE AND ACCURACYJuly 2022February 2025Allow3110YesNo
17858995OPERATIONAL SYSTEM, OPERATIONAL METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUMJuly 2022May 2025Abandon3420YesNo
17734620LANE EDGE EXTRACTION METHOD AND APPARATUS, AUTONOMOUS DRIVING SYSTEM, VEHICLE, AND STORAGE MEDIUMMay 2022December 2025Abandon4340YesNo
17763638METHOD FOR GENERATING DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF AREA AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE THEREOFMarch 2022May 2025Allow3830YesNo
17656029Dynamic Change of Map OriginMarch 2022September 2025Abandon4230YesNo
17700038SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR UPDATING A MAP ACCORDING TO FEATURE LOCATIONSMarch 2022October 2025Abandon4340NoNo
17689460Proactive Actions Based on Audio and Body MovementMarch 2022January 2025Allow3430YesNo
17584281USER INTERFACES FOR INDICATING AND/OR CONTROLLING CONTENT ITEM PLAYBACK FORMATSJanuary 2022March 2026Abandon5041YesNo
17549708OVERLAYING AN IMAGE OF A CONFERENCE CALL PARTICIPANT WITH A SHARED DOCUMENTDecember 2021October 2025Abandon4650YesNo
17518421SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ANNOTATION OF ANATOMICAL TREE STRUCTURES IN 3D IMAGESNovember 2021August 2025Abandon4660YesNo
17492530CONTEXT-BASED USER STATUS INDICATOR SELECTIONOctober 2021March 2025Abandon4140YesNo
17398583INTERNET OF THINGS CONFIGURATION USING EYE-BASED CONTROLSAugust 2021October 2025Allow5060YesNo
17334433SMALL-SCREEN WINDOW DISPLAY METHOD, DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUMMay 2021April 2025Abandon4780YesNo
16731965DECISION INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM AND METHODDecember 2019May 2025Allow6050YesNo
16568022INTERACTION STRENGTH USING VIRTUAL OBJECTS FOR MACHINE CONTROLSeptember 2019January 2026Allow6080YesNo
15395796MACRO/MICRO CONTROL USER INTERFACE ELEMENTDecember 2016March 2020Allow3920NoNo
14518952MOBILE TERMINAL AND CONTROLLING METHOD THEREOFOctober 2014September 2019Allow5940NoNo
14465901GROUPWARE MANAGEMENTAugust 2014November 2019Allow6040YesNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner AYAD, MARIA S - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner AYAD, MARIA S works in Art Unit 2172 and has examined 10 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 60.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 50 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner AYAD, MARIA S's allowance rate of 60.0% places them in the 20% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by AYAD, MARIA S receive 5.20 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 100% 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 AYAD, MARIA S is 50 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.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a -50.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by AYAD, MARIA S. This interview benefit is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. Note: Interviews show limited statistical benefit with this examiner compared to others, though they may still be valuable for clarifying issues.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 10.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 5% 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 16.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 18% 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 Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 12% 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 33.3% of allowed cases (in the 96% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

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

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.