Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18824516 | ELECTRONIC APPARATUS FOR CORRECTING VIDEO BASED ON CORRECTED GAIN INFORMATION AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF | September 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18838793 | VIDEO DISPLAYING APPARATUS, VIDEO PROCESSING SYSTEM, AND VIDEO PROCESSING METHOD | August 2024 | January 2026 | Abandon | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18797324 | DEPTH CAMERA CALIBRATION USING SPARSE DEPTH PATTERN | August 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18783725 | METHODS AND CIRCUITRY FOR CALIBRATION | July 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18740301 | FOCUS QUALITY DETERMINATION THROUGH MULTI-LAYER PROCESSING | June 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18680033 | SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND DEVICES FOR VIDEO STREAM SYNCHRONIZATION | May 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18670515 | Hybrid Two-Dimensional And Three-Dimensional Denoiser | May 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18708842 | POINT CLOUD DATA TRANSMISSION DEVICE, POINT CLOUD DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD, POINT CLOUD DATA RECEPTION DEVICE, AND POINT CLOUD DATA RECEPTION METHOD | May 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18491144 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR LOCKING AND UNLOCKING A POINTING DEVICE MOUNTED ON A CAR OF AN AMUSEMENT PARK RIDE | October 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 28 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18474024 | Waterproof Heating Module for Smoke Generator | September 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 28 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18236284 | METHOD/SYSTEM TO IDENTIFY, EXTRACT, AND CONVEY KEY WORDS, PHRASES, AND MEANINGS IN SERVICE OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS (E.G., VOICE, TEXT, AND VIDEO) | August 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18229419 | CONCEALMENT OF RIDE VEHICLES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OTHER RIDE VEHICLES | August 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 28 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17843946 | CAMERA START METHOD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE | June 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15916695 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM | March 2018 | November 2020 | Abandon | 32 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15720557 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR IMPLEMENTING APPLICATION CHAINING AND FOR DISPLAYING CUSTOMIZED CONTENT IN A WELCOME SCREEN | September 2017 | March 2020 | Abandon | 30 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 15555578 | STANDBY POWER CONTROLLER WITH IMPROVED STANDBY DETECTION | September 2017 | October 2019 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15662593 | Projection Display Apparatus | July 2017 | August 2019 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15392643 | DEVICE, METHOD, AND PROGRAM FOR PROVIDING SUBSCRIPTION CONTENT TO MULTIPLE CLIENT DEVICES CONNECTED IN A HOME NETWORK | December 2016 | May 2020 | Abandon | 41 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 15057415 | MULTI-AUDIO ANNOTATION | March 2016 | September 2018 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14929313 | System and Method for Distributing Experience Based Content | October 2015 | September 2017 | Abandon | 22 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14585213 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PROVIDING SELECTION OF VIDEO | December 2014 | February 2017 | Abandon | 26 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14510419 | ELECTRONIC APPARATUS AND DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD | October 2014 | January 2016 | Abandon | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14160964 | AUDIO STREAM METADATA INTEGRATION AND INTERACTION | January 2014 | December 2014 | Abandon | 11 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13996499 | FACE RECOGNITION CONTROL AND SOCIAL NETWORKING | August 2013 | September 2018 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13948741 | SWIMMING VEST FOR DOGS | July 2013 | February 2016 | Abandon | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13784320 | METHOD FOR GENERATING TIME BASED PREVIEW IMAGE FOR A VIDEO STREAM | March 2013 | October 2014 | Abandon | 19 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13403579 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LINKING TELEVISION VIEWERS WITH ADVERTISERS AND BROADCASTERS | February 2012 | April 2015 | Abandon | 38 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 13341155 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PRESENTING THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECTS IN AN INTERACTIVE MEDIA GUIDANCE APPLICATION | December 2011 | April 2015 | Abandon | 39 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13071551 | RECEPTION APPARATUS, RECEPTION METHOD, TRANSMISSION APPARATUS, TRANSMISSION METHOD, PROGRAM, AND BROADCASTING SYSTEM | March 2011 | May 2017 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12826628 | DYNAMIC LAYOUT OF CONTENT FOR MULTIPLE PROJECTORS | June 2010 | June 2017 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12652569 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING SUBTITLES ON A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE | January 2010 | November 2017 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12167460 | PLAYLIST EXECUTION IN A SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING ENVIRONMENT | July 2008 | May 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12165645 | Multimedia Content Filtering | June 2008 | October 2017 | Abandon | 60 | 14 | 0 | No | No |
| 11831355 | MULTIMEDIA PRESENTATION APPARATUS, METHOD OF SELECTING MULTIMEDIA CONTENT, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT | July 2007 | March 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10738419 | Personal video recorders with automated buffering | December 2003 | August 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 10138051 | Device for transferring data | May 2002 | January 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner FLYNN, NATHAN J.
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.
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.
⚠ 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 FLYNN, NATHAN J works in Art Unit 2421 and has examined 23 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 0.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 38 months.
Examiner FLYNN, NATHAN J's allowance rate of 0.0% places them in the 0% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by FLYNN, NATHAN J receive 3.87 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 97% 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 FLYNN, NATHAN J is 38 months. This places the examiner in the 29% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by FLYNN, NATHAN J. This interview benefit is in the 13% 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, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 0% 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 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.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 7% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 1% percentile among all examiners. 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 72% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.
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.
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.