Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18619644 | IMAGING SYSTEM | March 2024 | May 2025 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17431908 | TRANSFORM-BASED IMAGE CODING METHOD AND DEVICE THEREFOR | August 2021 | November 2023 | Allow | 27 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17197790 | INDEPENDENT SUBPICTURE SIGNALING IN VIDEO CODING | March 2021 | August 2022 | Abandon | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16981051 | RECEPTION DEVICE, RECEPTION METHOD, TRANSMISSION DEVICE, AND TRANSMISSION METHOD | September 2020 | October 2022 | Abandon | 25 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17019316 | CONTROLLING IMAGE ACQUISITION ROBOTS IN CONSTRUCTION SITES | September 2020 | April 2023 | Abandon | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16661584 | SMART CAMERA MODE INTELLIGENT REARVIEW MIRROR | October 2019 | November 2022 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 15573821 | IMAGE ACQUISITION METHOD AND DEVICE, AND VIDEO MONITORING METHOD AND SYSTEM | November 2017 | October 2022 | Abandon | 59 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 15561584 | MEDICAL SYSTEM | September 2017 | September 2019 | Abandon | 23 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15622418 | System for Authenticating an Object | June 2017 | August 2019 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15489721 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EXTRACTING FOREGROUND VIDEO | April 2017 | July 2019 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15384582 | VIDEO CODING SYSTEM WITH TEMPORAL SCALABILITY AND METHOD OF OPERATION THEREOF | December 2016 | April 2019 | Abandon | 28 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 15046314 | METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING AND USING REDUCED RESOLUTION IMAGES AND/OR COMMUNICATING SUCH IMAGES TO A PLAYBACK OR CONTENT DISTRIBUTION DEVICE | February 2016 | September 2018 | Abandon | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14956387 | HOLOGRAPHIC DISPLAYING METHOD AND DEVICE BASED ON HUMAN EYES TRACKING | December 2015 | September 2018 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14950655 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AIRCRAFT APPEARANCE INSPECTION | November 2015 | August 2018 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14948329 | VEHICLE VIEW MONITORING SYSTEM | November 2015 | May 2018 | Abandon | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14602631 | DECODING MULTI-LAYER IMAGES | January 2015 | April 2019 | Abandon | 51 | 6 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 14324747 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR RENDERING SELECTED PORTIONS OF VIDEO IN HIGH RESOLUTION | July 2014 | July 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14370614 | METHOD FOR VIDEO SURVEILLANCE, A RELATED SYSTEM, A RELATED SURVEILLANCE SERVER, AND A RELATED SURVEILLANCE CAMERA | July 2014 | May 2018 | Abandon | 46 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14063994 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REMOTE CONTROL OF A MICROSCOPE | October 2013 | November 2015 | Abandon | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13882070 | REMOTE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM | July 2013 | August 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 13942725 | METHOD FOR SIMULTANEOUSLY CODING QUANTIZED TRANSFORM COEFFICIENTS OF SUBGROUPS OF FRAME | July 2013 | August 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13903933 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ENHANCING STEREOSCOPIC IMAGES | May 2013 | February 2016 | Abandon | 33 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13989160 | METHOD FOR MONITORING WOOD HARVESTING, AND A SYSTEM | May 2013 | October 2015 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13788644 | AUTOMATED CHANNEL SWITCHING | March 2013 | September 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 13606229 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR RECOGNIZING FINGERPRINTS | September 2012 | November 2015 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13454669 | APPARATUSES AND METHODS FOR BITSTREAM BITSTUFFING | April 2012 | August 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 13427431 | Methods and Compositions for the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Disorders | March 2012 | February 2014 | Abandon | 22 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 13236509 | NON-COHERENT LIGHT MICROSCOPY | September 2011 | July 2015 | Abandon | 46 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13171629 | Multi-Level Video Processing Within A Vehicular Communication Network | June 2011 | December 2015 | Abandon | 53 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13104990 | SYNTAX ELEMENT PREDICTION IN ERROR CORRECTION | May 2011 | July 2015 | Abandon | 51 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 12981641 | THREE DIMENSIONAL (3D) GLASSES, 3D DISPLAY APPARATUS AND SYSTEM FOR CHARGING 3D GLASSES | December 2010 | August 2015 | Abandon | 55 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12949592 | ADAPTIVE SPECTRAL IMAGING BY USING AN IMAGING ASSEMBLY WITH TUNABLE SPECTRAL SENSITIVITIES | November 2010 | September 2015 | Abandon | 58 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12914650 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ERROR RESILIENT LONG TERM REFERENCING BLOCK REFRESH | October 2010 | September 2015 | Abandon | 58 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12890006 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHOD | September 2010 | August 2015 | Abandon | 59 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12743080 | MOBILE TERMINAL AND VIDEO OUTPUT METHOD | May 2010 | February 2013 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12752007 | Synthesizing Panoramic Three-Dimensional Images | March 2010 | April 2013 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12717113 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SHAPE CAPTURING AS USED IN PROSTHETICS, ORTHOTICS AND PEDORTHICS | March 2010 | March 2013 | Abandon | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12711843 | FAST INTEGER DCT METHOD ON MULTI-CORE PROCESSOR | February 2010 | February 2013 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12622681 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROTECTING PRIVACY INFORMATION OF SURVEILLANCE IMAGE | November 2009 | February 2013 | Abandon | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12551703 | MEANS TO ENGAGE ELECTRONIC DISPLAY PANELS TO CONVENTIONAL PICTURE FRAMES | September 2009 | May 2013 | Abandon | 44 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12534068 | High speed wireless video transmission | July 2009 | March 2013 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12341898 | MOVING IMAGE PROCESSING CIRCUIT AND CELLULAR PHONE WITH THE SAME | December 2008 | February 2013 | Abandon | 50 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12020668 | COMPRESSION CIRCUITRY FOR GENERATING AN ENCODED BITSTREAM FROM A PLURALITY OF VIDEO FRAMES | January 2008 | April 2013 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11626529 | IMAGE SENSING SYSTEM FOR A VEHICLE | January 2007 | May 2013 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner USTARIS, JOSEPH G.
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 USTARIS, JOSEPH G works in Art Unit 2483 and has examined 43 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 2.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 38 months.
Examiner USTARIS, JOSEPH G's allowance rate of 2.3% 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 USTARIS, JOSEPH G receive 2.86 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 93% 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 USTARIS, JOSEPH G is 38 months. This places the examiner in the 12% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -2.8% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by USTARIS, JOSEPH G. This interview benefit is in the 5% 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, 2.1% 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 0% 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 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 96% 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 15% 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 19% 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.