USPTO Examiner TSAI JAMES T - Art Unit 2177

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18430828Audio PassbackFebruary 2024June 2024Allow510NoNo
18197623COLLABORATION SYSTEM INCLUDING A SPATIAL EVENT MAPMay 2023April 2024Allow1120YesNo
18143722Adding Audio Content to Digital WorksMay 2023December 2023Allow710YesNo
17962353PORTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE, METHOD, AND GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE FOR DISPLAYING ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS AND LISTSOctober 2022December 2023Allow1410YesNo
17948096Devices, Methods, and Graphical User Interfaces for Interacting with Three-Dimensional EnvironmentsSeptember 2022June 2024Allow2110YesNo
17911330VIDEO DISPLAY DEVICE, VIDEO DISPLAY SYSTEM, VIDEO DISPLAY METHOD, AND PROGRAMSeptember 2022June 2024Abandon2120NoNo
17941330CONCURRENT CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATIONSeptember 2022March 2024Allow1820YesNo
17820437TEXT-GUIDED STICKER GENERATIONAugust 2022June 2024Allow2230YesNo
17819820MOVING APPLICATIONS ON MULTI-SCREEN COMPUTING DEVICEAugust 2022March 2024Allow1920YesNo
17882487METHOD AND DEVICE FOR ADDING EMOJI, APPARATUS AND STORAGE MEDIUMAugust 2022April 2024Allow2020YesNo
17727176METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING MESSAGE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE THEREOFApril 2022October 2023Allow1810YesNo
17698536VOLUME ADJUSTMENT METHOD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICEMarch 2022June 2024Abandon2720YesNo
17650892DISPLAY CONTROL SYSTEM, DISPLAY METHOD, AND PROGRAMFebruary 2022April 2024Allow2630YesNo
17646411REAL-TIME COMMUNICATION INTERFACE WITH HAPTIC AND AUDIO FEEDBACK RESPONSEDecember 2021December 2023Allow2420YesNo
17559459Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Presenting Representations of Media ContainersDecember 2021March 2024Allow2720YesNo
17557617NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEMDecember 2021January 2024Allow2520YesNo
17455218APPARATUS, METHOD AND STORAGE MEDIUMNovember 2021January 2024Allow2630YesNo
17523440SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING A DYNAMIC LOOP OF CONTENT FOR DISPLAYNovember 2021December 2023Allow2520YesNo
17232375HEAD TRACKING WITH VIRTUAL AVIONICS TRAINING PRODUCTSApril 2021August 2024Allow4030YesNo
17076617IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, METHOD FOR CONTROLLING IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND STORAGE MEDIUMOctober 2020June 2024Allow4450NoNo
17044396DATA REDUCTION APPARATUS, DATA REDUCTION METHOD, AND COMPUTER- READABLE RECORDING MEDIUMOctober 2020September 2024Abandon4720NoNo

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 TSAI, JAMES T - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner TSAI, JAMES T works in Art Unit 2177 and has examined 8 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 87.5%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 27 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner TSAI, JAMES T's allowance rate of 87.5% places them in the 67% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by TSAI, JAMES T receive 2.62 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 77% 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 TSAI, JAMES T is 27 months. This places the examiner in the 71% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +50.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by TSAI, JAMES T. This interview benefit is in the 93% 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, 35.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 78% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 0.0% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 2% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.

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 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.

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.
  • RCEs are effective: This examiner has a high allowance rate after RCE compared to others. If you receive a final rejection and have substantive amendments or arguments, an RCE is likely to be successful.

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.