Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17031844 | INTERACTING WITH HANDWRITTEN CONTENT ON AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE | September 2020 | April 2025 | Allow | 55 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17031661 | RUNTIME ESTIMATION FOR MACHINE LEARNING DATA PROCESSING PIPELINE | September 2020 | January 2025 | Allow | 52 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16937783 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR UNSUPERVISED FEATURE SELECTION FOR ONLINE MACHINE LEARNING | July 2020 | March 2025 | Allow | 56 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16445765 | OPTOACOUSTIC IMAGE ANALYSIS METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATICALLY ESTIMATING LESION TRAITS | June 2019 | October 2024 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 14945956 | BRAILLE DATA ENTRY USING CONTINUOUS CONTACT VIRTUAL KEYBOARD | November 2015 | February 2019 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14710788 | AUGMENTED REALITY INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM AND AUGMENTED REALITY DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD WITH SPACE INFORMATION CONVERSION AND DISPLAY CONTROL FEATURES | May 2015 | May 2019 | Allow | 48 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14594437 | CONTENT-BASED INTERACTIVE ELEMENTS ON ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS | January 2015 | September 2019 | Allow | 57 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14547282 | DYNAMICALLY ENABLING AN INTERACTIVE ELEMENT WITHIN A NON-INTERACTIVE VIEW OF A SCREEN SHARING SESSION | November 2014 | June 2017 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14478482 | GUI CONFIGURATION BASED ON A USER SELECTED EVENT | September 2014 | May 2018 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14383381 | METHOD FOR THE PARAMETER CHANGE OF PARAMETERISABLE FUNCTIONS BY MEANS OF DATA PROCESSING DEVICES COMPRISING A POINTING MEANS AND A DISPLAY OF A TOUCHSCREEN DEVICE | September 2014 | September 2018 | Allow | 48 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14185344 | DYNAMICALLY ENABLING AN INTERACTIVE ELEMENT WITHIN A NON-INTERACTIVE VIEW OF A SCREEN SHARING SESSION | February 2014 | June 2017 | Allow | 40 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BORJA, ROBERTO.
With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.
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, 0.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is less effective here than in most other areas.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner BORJA, ROBERTO works in Art Unit 2172 and has examined 11 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 100.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 48 months.
Examiner BORJA, ROBERTO's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 94% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by BORJA, ROBERTO receive 3.45 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 91% 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 BORJA, ROBERTO is 48 months. This places the examiner in the 9% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BORJA, ROBERTO. This interview benefit is in the 13% 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.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 26.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 47% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 18.2% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 23% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 17% 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.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 11% 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 14% 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.