Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17031877 | LIGHTING USER INTERFACES | September 2020 | May 2025 | Abandon | 55 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17028159 | PROVIDING ENHANCED FUNCTIONALITY IN AN INTERACTIVE ELECTRONIC TECHNICAL MANUAL | September 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 55 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16819659 | DYNAMIC MEDIA SELECTION MENU | March 2020 | February 2025 | Allow | 59 | 10 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16505881 | VIRTUAL GUIDE | July 2019 | June 2024 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14460471 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ICON BASED APPLICATION CONTROL | August 2014 | June 2018 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14340475 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MESSAGE PROCESSING | July 2014 | January 2019 | Allow | 54 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14190430 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CUSTOMIZING USER ICONS | February 2014 | May 2019 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14142111 | Adding Information to a Contact Record | December 2013 | April 2016 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13997672 | DISPLAYING AREA ADJUSTMENT | June 2013 | February 2019 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13849663 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MANAGING SCREENS IN A PORTABLE TERMINAL | March 2013 | August 2017 | Allow | 53 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13834801 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR FACILITATING STOPS FOR VEHICLES EN ROUTE TO A COMMON DESTINATION | March 2013 | May 2017 | Allow | 50 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13587609 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REMOTELY FLASHING A WIRELESS DEVICE | August 2012 | April 2019 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | No | No |
| 13418062 | GENERATING CUSTOM TEXT DOCUMENTS FROM MULTIDIMENSIONAL SOURCES OF TEXT | March 2012 | March 2016 | Allow | 48 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13245762 | JUMP TO TOP/JUMP TO BOTTOM SCROLL WIDGETS | September 2011 | April 2016 | Allow | 54 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13090034 | ZOOM ACCELERATION WIDGETS | April 2011 | July 2016 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13124239 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE, METHOD OF SELECTING MENU, AND PROGRAM FOR SELECTING MENU | April 2011 | December 2014 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13048528 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PINNING TABS IN A TABBED BROWSER | March 2011 | March 2013 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12690934 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DYNAMICALLY DISPLAYING STRUCTURALLY DISSIMILAR THUMBNAIL IMAGES OF AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT | January 2010 | January 2015 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12691142 | Adding Information to a Contact Record | January 2010 | August 2013 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12688016 | DISPLAY CONTROL APPARATUS AND DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD | January 2010 | November 2012 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12568835 | PERFORMING INTERACTIVE COLLABORATION WITHIN A VIRTUAL WORLD | September 2009 | July 2014 | Allow | 58 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12568289 | METHOD OF CONTROLLING THREE DIMENSIONAL OBJECT AND MOBILE TERMINAL USING THE SAME | September 2009 | November 2015 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12471792 | METHOD FOR CONTROLLING GESTURE-BASED REMOTE CONTROL SYSTEM | May 2009 | November 2011 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12343259 | HAND-HELD DEVICE AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A SINGLE POINTER TOUCH SENSITIVE USER INTERFACE | December 2008 | July 2013 | Allow | 55 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12216607 | Control of interactions within virtual environments | July 2008 | November 2013 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12123561 | COMPRESSING TOPOLOGICALINFORMATION PERTAINING TO MANAGED RESOURCES TO ENHANCE VISUALIZATION | May 2008 | June 2015 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12058097 | FACILITATING SEARCH FOR ITEMS IN 3D SIMULATIONS | March 2008 | September 2015 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12058361 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISPLAYING PUBLISHED ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS | March 2008 | January 2016 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 11971666 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ATTENDING A RECORDED EVENT IN A METAVERSE APPLICATION | January 2008 | June 2015 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11985137 | Image-forming apparatus with customizable operation panel settings, method thereof, and recording medium | November 2007 | January 2013 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11939835 | SELECTIVELY LOCKING GUI CONTROLS TO PREVENT ACCIDENTAL OPERATIONS IN A COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT | November 2007 | April 2011 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11869342 | Suggested Actions Within a Virtual Environment | October 2007 | December 2015 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11868480 | DYNAMIC MEETING AGENDA GENERATION BASED ON PRESENTER AVAILABILITY | October 2007 | July 2012 | Allow | 57 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11769863 | MEDIA CONTENT RECORDING AND HEALING STATUSES | June 2007 | January 2011 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11760610 | OVERFLOW STACK USER INTERFACE | June 2007 | June 2014 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11726030 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF DISPLAYING A MULTIMEDIA TIMELINE | March 2007 | October 2013 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11560383 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MAPPING GUI WIDGETS | November 2006 | July 2013 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 11557191 | WEB ACCESSIBILITY ASSISTANT | November 2006 | April 2012 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11490418 | Managing electronic sticky notes | July 2006 | September 2015 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner HOPE, DARRIN.
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.
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, 50.0% 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.
✓ 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 HOPE, DARRIN works in Art Unit 2178 and has examined 39 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 94.9%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 59 months.
Examiner HOPE, DARRIN's allowance rate of 94.9% places them in the 83% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by HOPE, DARRIN receive 3.72 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 94% 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 HOPE, DARRIN is 59 months. This places the examiner in the 2% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -11.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HOPE, DARRIN. This interview benefit is in the 3% 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, 21.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 28% 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 32.4% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 49% 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 request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 94% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 62.5% of appeals filed. This is in the 41% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 30.0% 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.
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 15% 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.