Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18619804 | SPATIOTEMPORAL RESAMPLING WITH DECOUPLED SHADING AND REUSE | March 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18614976 | SHADOW MAP BASED LATE STAGE REPROJECTION | March 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 18 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18589239 | APPARATUS AND METHOD USING TRIANGLE PAIRS AND SHARED TRANSFORMATION CIRCUITRY TO IMPROVE RAY TRACING PERFORMANCE | February 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18416997 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | January 2024 | February 2026 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18538814 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RECONSTRUCTING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT FROM AN IMAGE | December 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18538825 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RECONSTRUCTING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT FROM AN IMAGE | December 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18520378 | GENERATING THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELS USING MACHINE LEARNING MODELS | November 2023 | August 2025 | Allow | 21 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18389507 | THREE-DIMENSIONAL MEASUREMENT DEVICE | November 2023 | October 2025 | Abandon | 23 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 18486046 | TRAINING DATA SAMPLING FOR NEURAL NETWORKS | October 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18468824 | AUGMENTED REALITY REMOTE AUTHORING AND SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM AND SYSTEM | September 2023 | October 2025 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18447444 | AUTOMATED METHOD FOR GENERATING PROTHESIS FROM THREE DIMENSIONAL SCAN DATA AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM HAVING PROGRAM FOR PERFORMING THE METHOD | August 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18258729 | METHOD FOR ASSESSING THE PHYSICALLY BASED SIMULATION QUALITY OF A GLAZED OBJECT | June 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18296326 | Display Engine for Post-Rendering Processing | April 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 33 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18189273 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, PROGRAM, AND MOVING BODY | March 2023 | February 2026 | Abandon | 35 | 8 | 0 | No | No |
| 18169743 | EXTENDED REALITY SYSTEM FOR DISPLAYING ART | February 2023 | October 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18005049 | INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE and INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | January 2023 | February 2026 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17942565 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR OFFERING VIRTUAL REALITY SERVICE | September 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 38 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17942032 | Encoding and Decoding Visual Content Including Polygonal Meshes | September 2022 | December 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 2 | No | No |
| 17941488 | METHODS FOR BUILDING RETROFIT ANALYSIS AND VERIFICATION | September 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17905483 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROCESSING SCANNED OBJECTS | September 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 41 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17700668 | IMAGE RENDERING METHOD AND APPARATUS | March 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 46 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17344387 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR GENERATING AN ENVIRONMENT MODEL FOR POSITIONING | June 2021 | October 2025 | Abandon | 52 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17219606 | SYSTEM, DEVICES AND/OR PROCESSES FOR PREDICTIVE GRAPHICS PROCESSING | March 2021 | January 2026 | Allow | 58 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16819385 | ADAPTIVE MULTI-RESOLUTION FOR GRAPHICS | March 2020 | October 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14865933 | Position Only Shader Context Submission Through a Render Command Streamer | September 2015 | September 2018 | Allow | 36 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14780352 | INTERACTIVE SLIDE DECK | September 2015 | June 2017 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14741121 | TECHNIQUES FOR EFFICIENT GPU TRIANGLE LIST ADJACENCY DETECTION AND HANDLING | June 2015 | November 2016 | Allow | 17 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14348267 | THREE-DIMENSIONAL DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD AND 3D DISPLAY CONTROL DEVICE | March 2014 | July 2016 | Allow | 27 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14235958 | THREE DIMENSIONAL USER INTERFACE IN AUGMENTED REALITY | January 2014 | June 2016 | Allow | 28 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13985077 | METHOD FOR ESTIMATION OF OCCLUSION IN A VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT | August 2013 | November 2015 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13929952 | SEAM NETWORK PROCESSING FOR PANORAMA WEAVING | June 2013 | November 2015 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13992966 | Reducing the Domain Shader/Tessellator Invocations | June 2013 | May 2016 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13089122 | LINE SPACE GATHERING FOR SINGLE SCATTERING IN LARGE SCENES | April 2011 | August 2014 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12267209 | NON-LINEAR IMAGE MAPPING USING A PLURALITY OF NON-LINEAR IMAGE MAPPERS OF LESSER RESOLUTION | November 2008 | June 2014 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12218352 | IMAGE DISPLAY SYSTEM AND METHOD TO IDENTIFY IMAGES ACCORDING TO AN ASPECT RATIO OF AN EDITING LAYOUT | July 2008 | March 2014 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11847919 | SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR MULTI-DIMENSIONAL RENDERING AND DISPLAY OF FULL VOLUMETRIC DATA SETS | August 2007 | January 2014 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11557763 | Subdivision of Surfaces Approximation | November 2006 | June 2015 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BADER, ROBERT N..
With a 66.7% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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, 66.7% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
✓ Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner BADER, ROBERT N. works in Art Unit 2611 and has examined 16 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 87.5%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 40 months.
Examiner BADER, ROBERT N.'s allowance rate of 87.5% places them in the 67% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by BADER, ROBERT N. receive 3.31 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 92% 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 BADER, ROBERT N. is 40 months. This places the examiner in the 24% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -13.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BADER, ROBERT N.. This interview benefit is in the 2% 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, 22.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 29% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 5.9% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 6% 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 9% 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 40.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 7% 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, 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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 17% 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 23% 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.