Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17580636 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING TACTILE MESSAGE | January 2022 | October 2023 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17102318 | SCALABLE AND COMPRESSIVE NEURAL NETWORK DATA STORAGE SYSTEM | November 2020 | November 2023 | Allow | 36 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17096343 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING TACTILE MESSAGE | November 2020 | May 2024 | Abandon | 42 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 17083178 | METHOD FOR TRAINING NEURAL NETWORK | October 2020 | September 2024 | Abandon | 47 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17038616 | Intellectual-Property Landscaping Platform | September 2020 | February 2024 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17025207 | CONTROL SYSTEM | September 2020 | April 2024 | Abandon | 43 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16965193 | RESOURCE NEEDS PREDICTION IN VIRTUALIZED SYSTEMS: GENERIC PROACTIVE AND SELF-ADAPTIVE SOLUTION | July 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 47 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16875390 | LEARNING SYSTEM, REHABILITATION SUPPORT SYSTEM, METHOD, PROGRAM, AND TRAINED MODEL | May 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 50 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16816425 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD FOR GENERATING INFORMATION CORRESPONDING TO AN OPERATION IN RESPONSE TO INPUT OF PREDETERMINED TRIGGER OPERATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OPERATION | March 2020 | January 2024 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16793217 | NAVIGATION AND ANALYSIS ENGINE FOR AGGREGATE AND INDIVIDUAL INDICATORS | February 2020 | May 2024 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16511505 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SEQUENTIAL EVENT PREDICTION WITH NOISE-CONTRASTIVE ESTIMATION FOR MARKED TEMPORAL POINT PROCESS | July 2019 | March 2024 | Allow | 57 | 3 | 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 DASGUPTA, SHOURJO works in Art Unit 2176 and has examined 11 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 63.6%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 47 months.
Examiner DASGUPTA, SHOURJO's allowance rate of 63.6% places them in the 25% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by DASGUPTA, SHOURJO receive 2.55 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 71% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by DASGUPTA, SHOURJO is 47 months. This places the examiner in the 11% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +60.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by DASGUPTA, SHOURJO. This interview benefit is in the 96% 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.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 27.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 52% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 25.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 35% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 70% 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'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 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.