Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17005406 | METHOD FOR CONTROLLING DISPLAY SYSTEM, AND PROJECTOR | August 2020 | February 2022 | Abandon | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16902850 | BLIND ASSIST EYEWEAR WITH GEOMETRIC HAZARD DETECTION | June 2020 | August 2024 | Abandon | 50 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16894898 | PROJECTION CALIBRATION SYSTEM AND PROJECTION CALIBRATION METHOD THEREOF | June 2020 | February 2022 | Abandon | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15929754 | MARINE DOCKING AND OBJECT AWARENESS SYSTEM | May 2020 | October 2024 | Abandon | 52 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 16861476 | LOW PAPR COMPUTER GENERATED SEQUENCE PAIRING | April 2020 | March 2022 | Abandon | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16851565 | SECOND SCREEN HAPTICS | April 2020 | June 2022 | Abandon | 25 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16786511 | VEHICLE MIRROR RECORDING SYSTEM | February 2020 | December 2021 | Abandon | 22 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16783710 | SMART CAMERA, IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND DATA COMMUNICATION METHOD | February 2020 | June 2022 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16715529 | SATELLITE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM AND SATELLITE COMMUNICATION METHOD | December 2019 | March 2024 | Allow | 51 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16468682 | Efficient Prefetching of Common Video Clips | June 2019 | April 2022 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16401035 | PRIVACY AUGMENTATION USING COUNTER RECOGNITION | May 2019 | June 2021 | Abandon | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16311426 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONVEYANCE OF ZONE BACKLIGHT METADATA FOR HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE | December 2018 | November 2022 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 15451437 | VIDEO PROCESSING APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD | March 2017 | April 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15087981 | Method and System for Providing and Displaying Optional Overlays | March 2016 | April 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 10 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MILLER, JOHN W.
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 MILLER, JOHN W works in Art Unit 2422 and has examined 14 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 7.1%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.
Examiner MILLER, JOHN W's allowance rate of 7.1% places them in the 1% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by MILLER, JOHN W receive 3.71 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 MILLER, JOHN W is 34 months. This places the examiner in the 43% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +25.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MILLER, JOHN W. This interview benefit is in the 70% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 4.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 2% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 0% 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.
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.