Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16622022 | DEVICE FOR DETECTING THE TYPE AND THE LEVEL OF CLOTHING OF A PASSENGER OF A MOTOR VEHICLE UTILIZING A NEURAL NETWORK | April 2021 | January 2024 | Allow | 49 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17104680 | ACCESSIBILITY FEATURES FOR PROPERTY MONITORING SYSTEMS UTILIZING IMPAIRMENT DETECTION OF A PERSON | November 2020 | May 2024 | Allow | 41 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17089086 | ESTIMATION AND TRACKING OF POSITION INFORMATION IN A DISTRIBUTED RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM | November 2020 | April 2024 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16998107 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | August 2020 | February 2024 | Abandon | 41 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16998037 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING ROAD MAP BASED ON LEVEL OF NODES AND TARGET LINKS | August 2020 | February 2024 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16917587 | DYNAMIC CROSS-SERVICE USAGE ENFORCEMENT FOR USAGE MEASURED ACROSS MULTIPLE DIFFERENT NETWORK-BASED SERVICES | June 2020 | November 2023 | Allow | 41 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16909644 | DECISION TREE TRAINING WITH DIFFERENCE SUBSETS OF TRAINING SAMPLES BASED ON A PLURALITY OF CLASSIFICATIONS | June 2020 | October 2023 | Allow | 40 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16909805 | MODULAR CAMERA INTERFACE WITH CONTEXT-BASED DISPLAY ELEMENTS UTILIZING FIRST AND SECOND LENS | June 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 39 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16184371 | Dialing PBX Extensions From Cell Phone | November 2018 | February 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner FANG, PAKEE.
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.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner FANG, PAKEE works in Art Unit 2419 and has examined 9 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 77.8%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 41 months.
Examiner FANG, PAKEE's allowance rate of 77.8% places them in the 47% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by FANG, PAKEE receive 3.56 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.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by FANG, PAKEE is 41 months. This places the examiner in the 21% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +87.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by FANG, PAKEE. This interview benefit is in the 99% 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, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 16% 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 15.4% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 18% 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, 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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 89% 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 frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 14% 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 17% 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.