Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19218191 | INPUT PREPROCESSING FOR GENERATING IMAGES OF SYNTHETIC PRODUCTS | May 2025 | October 2025 | Allow | 5 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18566032 | METHOD, ENCODER, AND DISPLAY DEVICE FOR REPRESENTING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL SCENE AND DEPTH-PLANE DATA THEREOF | November 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 19 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18488711 | IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | October 2023 | December 2025 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18285608 | VOLUMETRIC VIDEO SUPPORTING LIGHT EFFECTS | October 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 25 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18462447 | STEREOSCOPIC VIDEO DISPLAY DEVICE, STEREOSCOPIC VIDEO DISPLAY METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | September 2023 | September 2025 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18450049 | IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | August 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18222000 | Stereo Depth Markers | July 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18350603 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF IMAGE RENDERING QUALITY PREDICTION AND PATH PLANNING FOR LARGE-SCALE SCENES, AND COMPUTER DEVICE | July 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18349323 | PROJECTING IMAGES ON A SPHERICAL VENUE | July 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18256459 | IMAGE GENERATION APPARATUS AND IMAGE GENERATION METHOD | June 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18303718 | ALIGNMENT OF 3D GRAPHICS EXTENDING BEYOND FRAME IN AUGMENTED REALITY SYSTEM WITH REMOTE PRESENTATION | April 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18187705 | Determination Of Illumination Parameters In Medical Image Rendering | March 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18079579 | GENERATION OF A 360-DEGREE OBJECT VIEW BY LEVERAGING AVAILABLE IMAGES ON AN ONLINE PLATFORM | December 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17925468 | INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM | November 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17981156 | MANHATTAN LAYOUT ESTIMATION USING GEOMETRIC AND SEMANTIC INFORMATION | November 2022 | August 2025 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17980476 | CHANGING COORDINATE SYSTEMS FOR DATA BOUND OBJECTS | November 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17980438 | COLLABORATIVE MIXED-REALITY SYSTEM FOR IMMERSIVE SURGICAL TELEMENTORING | November 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18050327 | GENERATING VIDEO STREAMS TO DEPICT BOT PERFORMANCE DURING AN AUTOMATION RUN | October 2022 | August 2025 | Allow | 34 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17961359 | ALLOCATION OF PRIMITIVES TO PRIMITIVE BLOCKS | October 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17901411 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | September 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17900200 | MULTI-PERSPECTIVE AUGMENTED REALITY EXPERIENCE | August 2022 | September 2025 | Allow | 36 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17843891 | AUDIO OR VISUAL INPUT INTERACTING WITH VIDEO CREATION | June 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 40 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17271402 | OPTICAL METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR LIGHT FIELD DISPLAYS BASED ON MOSAIC PERIODIC LAYER | February 2021 | January 2026 | Abandon | 58 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16811330 | MIXED REALITY BASED 3D SKETCHING DEVICE AND METHOD | March 2020 | December 2020 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16438706 | DISPLAY CALIBRATION IN ELECTRONIC DISPLAYS | June 2019 | April 2021 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16386217 | AUGMENTED REALITY PORTAL-BASED APPLICATIONS | April 2019 | July 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16302962 | INDEXING VOXELS FOR 3D PRINTING | November 2018 | July 2020 | Allow | 20 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16147206 | Systems and Methods for Displaying Representative Images | September 2018 | June 2020 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14340557 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DISPLAYING REPRESENTATIVE IMAGES | July 2014 | January 2017 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14258594 | SELECTING TIME-DISTRIBUTED PANORAMIC IMAGES FOR DISPLAY | April 2014 | December 2017 | Allow | 44 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14180044 | INTERACTIVE BOOK WITH INTEGRATED ELECTRONIC DEVICE | February 2014 | May 2016 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13861841 | COLOR SIGNAL PROCESSING DEVICE | April 2013 | June 2016 | Allow | 38 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13535019 | DYNAMIC EXPANSION OF DATA VISUALIZATIONS | June 2012 | July 2015 | Allow | 36 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13535175 | OPTIMIZING A GLYPH-BASED FILE | June 2012 | December 2015 | Allow | 42 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13535074 | PERSONAL AUDIO/VISUAL APPARATUS PROVIDING RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | June 2012 | November 2016 | Allow | 53 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13470217 | MULTI-DIMENSIONAL VISUALIZATION TOOL FOR BROWSING AND TROUBLESHOOTING AT SCALE | May 2012 | July 2016 | Allow | 50 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13509345 | DISPLAY DEVICE | May 2012 | July 2016 | Allow | 51 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13399310 | Adjusting Content Rendering for Environmental Conditions | February 2012 | June 2016 | Allow | 52 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13335055 | 3D MODEL SHAPE TRANSFORMATION METHOD AND APPARATUS | December 2011 | September 2014 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13329502 | INACTIVE DUMMY PIXELS | December 2011 | August 2014 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BEARD, CHARLES LLOYD.
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, 50.0% 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 face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner BEARD, CHARLES LLOYD works in Art Unit 2611 and has examined 18 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 94.4%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 38 months.
Examiner BEARD, CHARLES LLOYD's allowance rate of 94.4% places them in the 83% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by BEARD, CHARLES LLOYD receive 3.28 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 91% 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 BEARD, CHARLES LLOYD is 38 months. This places the examiner in the 30% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -6.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BEARD, CHARLES LLOYD. 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, 25.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 40% 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 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.
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 72% 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 60.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 36% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 33.3% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 3% 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 18% 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.