Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18721054 | FILM GRAIN PARAMETERS ADAPTATION BASED ON VIEWING ENVIRONMENT | June 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18620952 | METHOD FOR VIDEO PROCESSING, ENCODER FOR VIDEO PROCESSING, AND DECODER FOR VIDEO PROCESSING | March 2024 | May 2025 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17934318 | HISTORY-BASED ADAPTIVE INTERPRETATION OF CONTEXT CODED SYNTAX ELEMENTS FOR HIGH BIT-DEPTH VIDEO CODING | September 2022 | December 2024 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17469683 | ELECTRONIC DEVICES HAVING DISPLAYS WITH INFRARED COMPONENTS BEHIND THE DISPLAYS | September 2021 | March 2023 | Abandon | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17373522 | IMAGE DECODING METHOD USING CCLM PREDICTION IN IMAGE CODING SYSTEM, AND APPARATUS THEREFOR | July 2021 | May 2023 | Abandon | 22 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16494898 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SIGNALING SCALABLE VIDEO IN A MEDIA APPLICATION FORMAT | September 2019 | April 2021 | Abandon | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16362874 | INSPECTION DEVICE | March 2019 | April 2021 | Abandon | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15949713 | OBJECT RANGING BY COORDINATION OF LIGHT PROJECTION WITH ACTIVE PIXEL ROWS OF MULTIPLE CAMERAS | April 2018 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15649036 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON TRACKED ACTIVITIES | July 2017 | May 2021 | Allow | 46 | 11 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15079425 | ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND AUDITING METHOD EMPLOYED THEREBY | March 2016 | July 2017 | Abandon | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14769320 | IMAGING DEVICE BASED OCCUPANT MONITORING SYSTEM SUPPORTING MULTIPLE FUNCTIONS | August 2015 | August 2020 | Abandon | 59 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14457353 | VEHICLE IMAGING SYSTEM AND METHOD | August 2014 | April 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14092583 | CAMERA HAVING ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONALITY BASED ON CONNECTIVITY WITH A HOST DEVICE | November 2013 | June 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13302984 | GEOGRAPHIC MAP BASED CONTROL | November 2011 | April 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 10 | 0 | No | No |
| 12881357 | PARALLEL ENCODING DEVICE, RECORDING MEDIUM, AND IMAGING DATA ENCODING METHOD | September 2010 | August 2013 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12918714 | VIDEO STREAMING | August 2010 | August 2013 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12659678 | Multifunctional monitoring apparatus | March 2010 | July 2013 | Abandon | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12678256 | IMAGE PICKUP APPARATUS AND ENDOSCOPE HAVING THE SAME | March 2010 | June 2013 | Abandon | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12552977 | DIGITAL IMAGE DISPLAY DEVICE | September 2009 | September 2012 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12487356 | ENCODING SYSTEM AND METHOD, DECODING SYSTEM AND METHOD, MULTIPLEXING APPARATUS AND METHOD, AND DISPLAY SYSTEM AND METHOD | June 2009 | December 2011 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12445091 | SCALABLE VIDEO CODING ENCODER WITH ADAPTIVE REFERENCE FGS AND FGS MOTION REFINEMENT MECHANISM AND METHOD THEREOF | April 2009 | September 2012 | Abandon | 41 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 12411706 | VIDEO-SIGNAL SWITCHING APPARATUS | March 2009 | March 2012 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12267976 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INSERTING DIGITAL MEDIA ADVERTISEMENTS INTO STATISTICAL MULTIPLEXED STREAMS | November 2008 | January 2012 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11905557 | METHOD OF REMOVING A BLOCKING PHENOMENON IN A BLOCK BASED ON PRIORITIZED FACTORS | October 2007 | March 2012 | Allow | 54 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11905541 | METHOD OF REMOVING A BLOCKING PHENOMENON USING PROPERTIES OF A SECOND BLOCK ADJACENT A FIRST BLOCK | October 2007 | March 2012 | Allow | 54 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11905547 | METHOD OF PERFORMING LOOP-FILTERING ON FOUR SUCCESSIVE PIXELS OF AN IMAGE | October 2007 | March 2012 | Allow | 54 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11905550 | METHOD OF OBTAINING FILTERED VALUES IN A HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL DIRECTION | October 2007 | March 2012 | Allow | 54 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11905558 | METHOD OF REMOVING A BLOCKING PHENOMENON IN A BLOCK USING A HORIZONTAL FILTER STRENGTH AND THEN A VERTICAL FILTER STRENGTH | October 2007 | March 2012 | Allow | 54 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11905553 | METHOD OF FILTERING A PIXEL USING HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL FILTERING COEFFICIENTS | October 2007 | March 2012 | Allow | 54 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11905551 | METHOD OF REMOVING BLOCKING ARTIFACT BY FILTERING PIXELS IN A HORIZONTAL AND THEN VERTICAL DIRECTION | October 2007 | March 2012 | Allow | 54 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11828102 | IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS AND ASSOCIATED METHOD | July 2007 | March 2012 | Allow | 56 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11746043 | APPARATUS, METHODS, AND SYSTEMS FOR INTELLIGENT SECURITY AND SAFETY | May 2007 | September 2008 | Allow | 16 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11586590 | MOVING PICTURE CODING METHOD, AND MOVING PICTURE DECODING METHOD | October 2006 | February 2012 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 11424469 | PICTURE SIGNAL PROCESSING DEVICE | June 2006 | May 2011 | Allow | 59 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10821294 | Method of selecting targets and generating feedback in object tracking systems | April 2004 | November 2012 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10453211 | METHOD FOR RESTRUCTURING A GROUP OF PICTURES TO PROVIDE FOR RANDOM ACCESS INTO THE GROUP OF PICTURES | June 2003 | March 2009 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10377914 | System and method for the asynchronous collection and management of video data | February 2003 | May 2012 | Abandon | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 09871493 | ELECTRONIC SHOPPING CART DISPLAY SYSTEM | May 2001 | February 2012 | Allow | 60 | 15 | 0 | No | No |
| 09841140 | System and data format for providing seamless stream switching in a digital video recorder | April 2001 | September 2012 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CZEKAJ, DAVID 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 CZEKAJ, DAVID J works in Art Unit 2487 and has examined 37 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 45.9%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 54 months.
Examiner CZEKAJ, DAVID J's allowance rate of 45.9% places them in the 6% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by CZEKAJ, DAVID J receive 3.41 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 99% 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 CZEKAJ, DAVID J is 54 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 -21.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CZEKAJ, DAVID J. This interview benefit is in the 0% 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, 9.6% 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 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, 100.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 71% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. If you have strong arguments, a PAC request may result in favorable reconsideration.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 40.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 5% 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 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, 63.6% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 80% 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 2.7% of allowed cases (in the 81% 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 20% 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.