Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18700291 | ALF APSs FOR MULTILAYER CODING AND DECODING | April 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12635914 | VIDEO ENCODING/ DECODING METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MOTION COMPENSATION PREDICTION | December 2009 | January 2011 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12635840 | VIDEO ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MOTION COMPENSATION PREDICTION | December 2009 | January 2011 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12635133 | VIDEO ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MOTION COMPENSATION PREDICTION | December 2009 | January 2011 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12634714 | VIDEO ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MOTION COMPENSATION PREDICTION | December 2009 | December 2010 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12632430 | VIDEO ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MOTION COMPENSATION PREDICTION | December 2009 | December 2010 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11562926 | MOVEMENT DETECTION AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN "ACTUAL REALITY" IMAGE | November 2006 | March 2011 | Abandon | 51 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11475160 | FIXING STRUCTURE | June 2006 | December 2010 | Allow | 53 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 11435214 | ROBUST SYSTEM FOR MAINTAINING AUDIO/VIDEO SYNCHRONIZATION DURING PLAYBACK OF MULTIMEDIA STREAMS WITH NO EMBEDDED TIME STAMPS | May 2006 | February 2011 | Allow | 57 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11395165 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS HAVING RECEIVING DEVICE THAT RECEIVES VIDEO DATA | April 2006 | December 2010 | Allow | 57 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11375812 | POSITION ACCURACY EVALUATION METHOD AND POSITION ACCURACY EVALUATION APPARATUS | March 2006 | January 2011 | Allow | 58 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11364692 | APPARATUS AND SYSTEM FOR REPRODUCING 3-DIMENSIONAL IMAGES | February 2006 | March 2011 | Allow | 60 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 11153033 | Image display device having slim type cathode ray tube | June 2005 | January 2011 | Abandon | 60 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 11150194 | Method and apparatus for monitoring macro range of environment based on reference frames comparison | June 2005 | January 2011 | Abandon | 60 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11150264 | Monitor system for monitoring suspicious object | June 2005 | January 2011 | Abandon | 60 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 11151628 | System and method for providing one-pass rate control for encoders | June 2005 | January 2011 | Abandon | 60 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11094771 | Buffer architecture for data organization | March 2005 | January 2011 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 11083886 | METHODS AND SYSTEM FOR ENCODING/DECODING SIGNALS INCLUDING SCRAMBLING SPECTRAL REPRESENTATION AND DOWNSAMPLING | March 2005 | September 2010 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11084531 | METHOD FOR ENCODING/DECODING SIGNALS WITH MULTIPLE DESCRIPTIONS VECTOR AND MATRIX | March 2005 | September 2010 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11042625 | ENDOSCOPE SENSOR AND CIRCUIT INTERCONNECTION FOR NARROW MOUNTING | January 2005 | March 2011 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11042776 | Method and apparatus for providing dentable encoding and encapsulation | January 2005 | March 2011 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10997575 | Video data encoder employing telecine detection | November 2004 | March 2011 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10515555 | DATA PROCESSING DEVICE AND DATA PROCESSING METHOD | November 2004 | February 2011 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10990943 | Video signal preprocessing to minimize prediction error | November 2004 | March 2011 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10985110 | System and method for choosing tables in CAVLC | November 2004 | March 2011 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10973443 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CALCULATING MOVING-IMAGE CORRECTION-COEFFICIENT, MOVING-IMAGE CORRECTING APPARATUS, AND COMPUTER PRODUCT | October 2004 | October 2010 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10501001 | FIELD/FRAME ADAPTIVE CODING AND DECODING METHOD WITH FIELD/FRAME INDEX AND APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING THE SAME | July 2004 | October 2010 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10430197 | Mobile device management system | May 2003 | January 2011 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner TORRENTE, RICHARD T.
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, 16.7% 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.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner TORRENTE, RICHARD T works in Art Unit 2482 and has examined 27 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 55.6%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 10000 months.
Examiner TORRENTE, RICHARD T's allowance rate of 55.6% places them in the 16% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by TORRENTE, RICHARD T receive 2.37 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 68% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by TORRENTE, RICHARD T is 10000 months. This places the examiner in the 0% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +2.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by TORRENTE, RICHARD T. This interview benefit is in the 22% 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, 20.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 23% 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 28.6% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 40% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 50.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 43% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show below-average success with this examiner. Consider whether your arguments are strong enough to warrant a PAC request.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 90% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 50.0% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 2% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 7.4% of allowed cases (in the 90% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 21% 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.