Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18772339 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING A FACIAL IMAGE FROM A VOICE SAMPLE USING A STYLEGAN | July 2024 | January 2026 | Abandon | 18 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18580103 | MULTIMEDIA PLAYBACK MONITORING SYSTEM AND METHOD, AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS | January 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 22 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18513815 | System, Method And Software Program For Aiding In Positioning Of Objects In A Surgical Environment | November 2023 | September 2025 | Allow | 22 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18354159 | INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, HEAD-MOUNTED DISPLAY DEVICE, CONTROL METHOD OF INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM WITH WHITE-BALANCE CORRECTION VALUE CORRESPONDING TO COLOR TEMPERATURE OF ENVIRONMENT LIGHT-SOURCE | July 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18337634 | TEXT-TO-IMAGE SYNTHESIS UTILIZING DIFFUSION MODELS WITH TEST-TIME ATTENTION SEGREGATION AND RETENTION OPTIMIZATION | June 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18256182 | IMAGE DISPLAY APPARATUS, IMAGE DISPLAY METHOD, AND PROGRAM | June 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18001120 | AUTOMATIC LAYER FLATTENING WITH REAL-TIME VISUAL DEPICTION | December 2022 | August 2025 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18059377 | System and method for an audio-visual avatar creation | November 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18057117 | REFINEMENT OF FACIAL KEYPOINT METADATA GENERATION FOR VIDEO CONFERENCING OR OTHER APPLICATIONS | November 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 38 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17974033 | System for Derivation of Consistent Avatar Appearance Across Metaverse Ecosystems | October 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 39 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17948456 | MEDICAL IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MEDICAL IMAGE DIAGNOSIS IN CONTRAST-ENHANCED DYNAMIC EXAMINATION, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM | September 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 40 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17802752 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAM | August 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 38 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17620948 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR GENERATING SPEECH VIDEO ON BASIS OF MACHINE LEARNING | May 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 49 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17662061 | DIGITAL IMAGE SUB-DIVISION | May 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 41 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17678384 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CREATING THREE-DIMENSIONAL RENDERINGS OF ENVIRONMENTS FROM TWO-DIMENSIONAL IMAGES | February 2022 | January 2024 | Abandon | 23 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17475472 | ROBOT SURGICAL PLATFORM | September 2021 | December 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17334769 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ENCODING A BLOCK-BASED VOLUMETRIC VIDEO HAVING A PLURALITY OF VIDEO FRAMES OF A 3D OBJECT INTO A 2D VIDEO FORMAT | May 2021 | October 2025 | Abandon | 52 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16900500 | DATA SERIALIZATION EXTRUSION FOR CONVERTING TWO-DIMENSIONAL IMAGES TO THREE-DIMENSIONAL GEOMETRY | June 2020 | July 2023 | Abandon | 37 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16583599 | BIOMETRIC VERIFICATION FRAMEWORK THAT UTILIZES A CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORK FOR FEATURE MATCHING | September 2019 | November 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16532321 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FEW-SHOT TRANSFER LEARNING | August 2019 | July 2025 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16518501 | AUTOMATIC VIEW MAPPING FOR SINGLE-IMAGE AND MULTI-VIEW CAPTURES | July 2019 | December 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 12 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15663691 | SELECTIVE REDUCTION OF BLUE LIGHT IN A DISPLAY FRAME | July 2017 | July 2019 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15616827 | DISPLAY APPARATUS AND DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD FOR SIMULTANEOUSLY DISPLAYING A PLURALITY OF IMAGES | June 2017 | January 2019 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15209758 | METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR 3D IMAGING AND CUSTOM MANUFACTURING | July 2016 | March 2018 | Abandon | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15155488 | SYSTEM FOR DISTRIBUTING AND CONTROLLING COLOR REPRODUCTION AT MULTIPLE SITES | May 2016 | October 2017 | Allow | 17 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14535543 | PROJECTED CONTENT BASED DISPLAY DEVICE AND DISPLAY METHOD | November 2014 | January 2020 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13942467 | PATTERNED PROJECTION WITH MULTI-PANEL DISPLAY | July 2013 | June 2016 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13978952 | GRAY-SCALE CORRECTION METHOD FOR DISPLAY DEVICE, AND METHOD OF PRODUCING DISPLAY DEVICE | July 2013 | June 2015 | Allow | 23 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13936867 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PRODUCING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL FACE MODEL | July 2013 | October 2017 | Allow | 51 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13978659 | TEXTURE MAPPING DEVICE | July 2013 | September 2015 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13050443 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING A THUMBNAIL IMAGE INCLUDING A MAGNIFIED CHARACTERISTIC REGION AND ANOTHER DEFORMED REGION AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM THEREOF | March 2011 | August 2014 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13049998 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING IMAGES OF A VIRTUAL WORLD SCENE AND METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROCESSING THE SAME | March 2011 | May 2014 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13049959 | METHOD FOR GENERATING LOOKUP TABLE FOR COLOR CORRECTION FOR DISPLAY DEVICE | March 2011 | November 2013 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12761756 | IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS AND IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD | April 2010 | August 2013 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12761322 | TERMINAL DEVICE INCLUDING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL CAPABLE DISPLAY | April 2010 | May 2014 | Allow | 49 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12662287 | Image processing apparatus performing rendering using multiple viewpoints and method | April 2010 | February 2014 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12730134 | System and Method for Generating a Three-Dimensional Image on a Pre-Printed Lined Substrate | March 2010 | July 2014 | Allow | 52 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12606559 | CONTROLLING ANIMATION FRAME RATE OF APPLICATIONS | October 2009 | July 2013 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12462938 | THREE-DIMENSIONAL TACTICAL DISPLAY AND METHOD FOR VISUALIZING DATA WITH A PROBABILITY OF UNCERTAINTY | August 2009 | February 2016 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12423769 | ADJUSTING THE DISPLAY ORIENTATION OF AN IMAGE ON A MOBILE TERMINAL | April 2009 | June 2013 | Allow | 50 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12266870 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ENCODING DATASTREAM INCLUDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON MULTIVIEW IMAGE AND METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DECODING DATASTREAM BY USING THE SAME | November 2008 | June 2014 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12169081 | COREGISTRATION AND ANALYSIS OF MULTI-MODAL IMAGES OBTAINED IN DIFFERENT GEOMETRIES | July 2008 | June 2015 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner HE, WEIMING.
With a 40.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is above the USPTO average, indicating that appeals have better success here than typical.
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, 40.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.
✓ 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 HE, WEIMING works in Art Unit 2611 and has examined 28 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 75.0%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 49 months.
Examiner HE, WEIMING's allowance rate of 75.0% places them in the 40% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by HE, WEIMING receive 3.68 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 95% 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 HE, WEIMING is 49 months. This places the examiner in the 7% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -11.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HE, WEIMING. This interview benefit is in the 3% 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, 17.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 16% 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 21.9% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 28% 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, 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 37.5% of appeals filed. This is in the 6% 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 91% 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 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.