Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18626408 | Implicitly Annotating Textual Data in Conversational Messaging | April 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18244428 | THE METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING AUDIO DATA BY RECOGNIZING USER GESTURE AND POSITION USING MULTIPLE MOBILE DEVICES | September 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18103571 | Implicitly Annotating Textual Data in Conversational Messaging | January 2023 | March 2024 | Allow | 14 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18047202 | MULTI-LEVEL MENU DISPLAY METHOD OF ELECTRONIC INTERATIVE TABLET, AND ELECTRONIC INTERACTIVE TABLET | October 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 28 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17961814 | MEETING TRANSCRIPTION USING CUSTOM LEXICONS BASED ON DOCUMENT HISTORY | October 2022 | June 2024 | Abandon | 20 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17858395 | METHOD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR CONFIGURING USER INTERFACE BASED ON INPUT FIELD | July 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 33 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17847151 | Method and System for Gesture and Displaying Sideline Operation | June 2022 | January 2025 | Allow | 30 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17833340 | METHOD AND SYSTEM OF INTELLIGENTLY GENERATING HELP DOCUMENTATION | June 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17573842 | METHOD, APPARATUS, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM FOR AUGMENTING DEFECT SAMPLE DATA | January 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17565261 | DYNAMIC VISUALIZATION OF AN OBJECT TRACKED BY AN OBJECT TRACKING SYSTEM IN A GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE | December 2021 | May 2025 | Allow | 41 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17558104 | APPARATUS FOR RECOGNIZING USER COMMAND USING NON-CONTACT GAZE-BASED HEAD MOTION INFORMATION AND METHOD USING THE SAME | December 2021 | March 2024 | Abandon | 27 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17557178 | METHOD OF OPERATING AND CONFIGURING A PUMP WITH A FUNCTION MODULE | December 2021 | September 2023 | Abandon | 21 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17543050 | Wireless Earpiece with a Passive Virtual Assistant | December 2021 | August 2024 | Allow | 32 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17514439 | VOICE NOTES WITH CHANGING EFFECTS | October 2021 | January 2024 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17452094 | UNIFIED USER INTERFACE FOR MONITORING HYBRID DEPLOYMENT OF COMPUTING SYSTEMS | October 2021 | December 2024 | Allow | 37 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17489508 | METHODS AND USER INTERFACES FOR HANDLING USER REQUESTS | September 2021 | March 2025 | Allow | 42 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17347089 | COMPANION DEVICES AS PRODUCTIVITY TOOLS | June 2021 | May 2025 | Allow | 47 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17339872 | MULTI-INSTANCE, MULTI-USER VIRTUAL REALITY SPACES | June 2021 | October 2021 | Allow | 5 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17331969 | IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS AUTOMATICALLY CREATING LAYOUT OF COMBINATION IMAGE FROM IMAGE GROUP, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, PROGRAM, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | May 2021 | December 2024 | Allow | 42 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17240485 | DIGITAL ASSISTANT USER INTERFACES AND RESPONSE MODES | April 2021 | May 2024 | Abandon | 36 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17286612 | USER INPUT MODULE FOR AN AUTOMATION ENGINEERING FIELD DEVICE, AND SAME FIELD DEVICE | April 2021 | April 2024 | Abandon | 36 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17227012 | DIGITAL ASSISTANT USER INTERFACES AND RESPONSE MODES | April 2021 | December 2023 | Allow | 32 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17105610 | Multi-Optotype, Computerized Visual Acuity Examination with Voice Assistance | November 2020 | March 2024 | Abandon | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17038867 | MEDIA CONTENT TRANSMISSION AND MANAGEMENT | September 2020 | May 2021 | Allow | 7 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17008493 | PORTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING TOUCH-SENSITIVE DISPLAY AND METHOD OF NAVIGATING DISPLAYED INFORMATION | August 2020 | February 2024 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16847495 | COLUMN FIT DOCUMENT TRAVERSAL FOR READER APPLICATION | April 2020 | February 2025 | Abandon | 58 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16680431 | Using Refinement Widgets for Data Fields Referenced by Natural Language Expressions in a Data Visualization User Interface | November 2019 | October 2023 | Allow | 47 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16105671 | MAPPING ACTIONS AND OBJECTS TO TASKS | August 2018 | June 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SHEN, SAMUEL.
With a 33.3% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is above the USPTO average, indicating that appeals have better success here than typical.
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, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable reconsideration.
✓ 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 shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner SHEN, SAMUEL works in Art Unit 2179 and has examined 27 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 59.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 36 months.
Examiner SHEN, SAMUEL's allowance rate of 59.3% places them in the 13% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by SHEN, SAMUEL receive 4.07 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 100% 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 SHEN, SAMUEL is 36 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.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +30.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SHEN, SAMUEL. This interview benefit is in the 82% 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, 12.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 4% 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.
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 14% 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.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 100.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 70% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. If you have strong arguments, a PAC request may result in favorable reconsideration.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 57.1% of appeals filed. This is in the 24% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 25.0% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 83% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.
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 12% 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.