USPTO Examiner CHAVEZ RENEE D - Art Unit 2179

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17130965Brokerage Tool for Accessing Cloud-Based ServicesDecember 2020September 2021Allow910YesNo
17115258ELECTRONIC APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD FOR FINE ITEM MOVEMENT ADJUSTMENTDecember 2020October 2021Allow1120YesNo
17076402ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOFOctober 2020April 2022Abandon1810NoNo
17001550SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATIC MEETING NOTE CREATION AND SHARING USING A USER'S CONTEXT AND PHYSICAL PROXIMITYAugust 2020September 2021Allow1310YesNo
16919604MOBILE TERMINAL HAVING DUAL TOUCH SCREEN AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING CONTENT THEREINJuly 2020December 2021Allow1720YesNo
16946136PROVIDING CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION WITH KEYBOARD INTERFACE FOR MESSAGING SYSTEMJune 2020October 2023Allow4130YesNo
16701775INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUMDecember 2019October 2021Allow2330YesNo
16548724VOICE-ENABLED MOOD IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM FOR SENIORSAugust 2019February 2021Abandon1810NoNo
16433674CODE LIST BUILDERJune 2019October 2021Allow2910YesNo
16395167SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CUSTOMIZING SUB-APPLICATIONS AND DASHBOARDS IN A DIGITAL HUDDLE ENVIRONMENTApril 2019November 2021Allow3140YesNo
16264520NOTIFICATION INTERFACE ON A WEARABLE DEVICE FOR DATA ALERTSJanuary 2019September 2023Allow5670YesNo
15978028Attention Levels in a Gesture Control SystemMay 2018December 2019Abandon1910YesNo
15906118TRANSMITTING RESPONSE CONTENT ITEMSFebruary 2018September 2021Allow4340YesNo
15844393METHOD FOR CONTENTS TAGGING AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE SUPPORTING THE SAMEDecember 2017April 2020Abandon2820NoNo
15796727DISPLAYING A TRANSLUCENT VERSION OF A USER INTERFACE ELEMENTOctober 2017November 2021Allow4940YesNo
15581317SOLID-STATE IMAGE PICKUP UNIT AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUSApril 2017May 2018Allow1210NoNo
15446019DISPLAY CONTROL DEVICEMarch 2017January 2020Abandon3420NoNo
15301749APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR READING OUT AN OPTICAL CHIPOctober 2016April 2018Allow1900NoNo
15301664METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AUTOMATICALLY ADJUSTING INTERFACE ELEMENTOctober 2016February 2021Abandon5240YesNo
15248539MEETING COLLABORATION SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODSAugust 2016October 2019Abandon3720NoNo
15211243Video-Production System With Social-Media FeaturesJuly 2016December 2020Abandon5340YesNo
15076977ALIGNMENT SYSTEM AND EXTREME ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT GENERATION SYSTEMMarch 2016May 2018Allow2610NoNo
14919978Visualizations of Medical InventoryOctober 2015January 2019Abandon3910NoNo
14768059ASSEMBLY FOR A VIDEO ENDOSCOPEAugust 2015March 2018Allow3110NoNo
14766667OPTICAL RECEIVER AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOFAugust 2015February 2018Allow3010NoNo
14792736Patient Care CardsJuly 2015December 2019Abandon5320YesNo
14716310DYNAMIC RESIZABLE MEDIA ITEM PLAYERMay 2015September 2020Abandon6060YesNo
14554519ASSISTED CLIENT APPLICATION ACCESSIBILITYNovember 2014November 2019Abandon6040YesNo
14394635INPUT DEVICE, INPUT CONTROL METHOD, AND INPUT CONTROL PROGRAMOctober 2014December 2019Allow6051YesYes
14451460Dual Module Portable DevicesAugust 2014September 2019Abandon6040YesNo
14303681VIDEO SCROLLING SHORTCUTS FOR TOUCHSCREEN DISPLAYJune 2014December 2019Abandon6060YesNo
14281809GRAPHIC-INFORMATION FLOW METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR VISUALLY ANALYZING PATTERNS AND RELATIONSHIPSMay 2014July 2019Abandon6060YesNo
14281787GRAPHIC-INFORMATION FLOW METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR VISUALLY ANALYZING PATTERNS AND RELATIONSHIPSMay 2014July 2019Abandon6060YesNo
14211614IMAGING APPARATUS WITH PHASE DIFFERENCE FOCUS DETECTION AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING SAMEMarch 2014May 2016Allow2620NoNo
14101341ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR INSERTING OBJECTS INTO NOTE-TAKING SOFTWARE OF THE ELECTRONIC DEVICEDecember 2013July 2018Abandon5540NoNo
14026987MESSAGING INTERACTION ENGINESeptember 2013August 2018Abandon5960YesNo
13964417METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CUSTOMIZING A USER INTERFACE OF A MOBILE DEVICEAugust 2013June 2018Abandon5850YesNo
13560720CONTENT PERSONALIZATION SYSTEMJuly 2012August 2019Abandon60100YesNo
13478343SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIA FOR MONITORING COMMUNICATIONS ON A NETWORKMay 2012February 2019Abandon6060YesNo
13471824DEVICE SEARCHING SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DATA TRANSMISSIONMay 2012July 2018Abandon6060NoNo
13341824AR GLASSES WITH SENSOR AND USER ACTION BASED CONTROL OF EXTERNAL DEVICES WITH FEEDBACKDecember 2011July 2019Abandon6080YesNo
12822518High Bandwidth, Monolithic Traveling Wave Photodiode ArrayJune 2010January 2013Abandon3110NoNo
12475295EXTENDING STANDARD GESTURESMay 2009June 2018Abandon6080NoNo
11961773Portable Electronic Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Displaying Inline Multimedia ContentDecember 2007August 2020Abandon6070YesYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CHAVEZ, RENEE D.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
1
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
5.0%
Lower than average

What This Means

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.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
2
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
2.9%
Lower than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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.

Strategic Recommendations

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 CHAVEZ, RENEE D - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner CHAVEZ, RENEE D works in Art Unit 2179 and has examined 44 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 40.9%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 43 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner CHAVEZ, RENEE D's allowance rate of 40.9% places them in the 8% 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 CHAVEZ, RENEE D receive 3.55 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 92% 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 CHAVEZ, RENEE D is 43 months. This places the examiner in the 17% 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 +5.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CHAVEZ, RENEE D. This interview benefit is in the 32% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 11.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 8% 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 3.1% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 6% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 17% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 40.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 28% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.

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 15% 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:

  • 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.
  • Request pre-appeal conferences: PACs are highly effective with this examiner. Before filing a full appeal brief, request a PAC to potentially resolve issues without full PTAB review.
  • 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.