USPTO Examiner BROOME SAID A - Art Unit 2612

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18408181High-Fidelity Micro-Doppler Effect SimulatorJanuary 2024December 2025Allow2310NoNo
18572888Method for calculating one or more isovists of a physical or extended reality environmentDecember 2023November 2025Allow2310NoNo
18534725IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM, FOR HIGH-DEFINITION CREATION OF AN IMAGE ON A SCREENDecember 2023November 2025Allow2310NoNo
18491993LUMINANCE-PRESERVING AND TEMPORALLY STABLE DALTONIZATIONOctober 2023March 2026Allow2920NoNo
18378152IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHODOctober 2023January 2026Allow2710YesNo
18483813SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND MEDIA FOR GENERATING VISUALIZATION OF PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT IN ARTIFICIAL REALITYOctober 2023November 2025Allow2510NoNo
18553640AUTO SAFE ZONE DETECTIONOctober 2023January 2026Abandon2710NoNo
18473274NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUMSeptember 2023February 2026Abandon2820YesNo
18281995IDENTIFYING VARIATION IN SURGICAL APPROACHESSeptember 2023January 2026Allow2810NoNo
18447019FEATURE EXTRACTION USING A POINT OF A COLLECTION OF POINTSAugust 2023February 2026Allow3010NoNo
18362295AUGMENTED REALITY-ASSISTED SERVICING OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ASSETSJuly 2023December 2025Allow2910YesNo
18322196SERVER APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND OPERATING METHOD OF SYSTEMMay 2023January 2026Abandon3220NoNo
18122793SURGICAL SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND DEVICES EMPLOYING AUGMENTED REALITY (AR) FOR PLANNINGMarch 2023January 2026Allow3410NoNo
17935665Systems and Methods for Defining, Bonding, and Editing Point Cloud Data Points with PrimitivesSeptember 2022March 2023Allow610NoNo
17695902SINGLE IMAGE-BASED REAL-TIME BODY ANIMATIONMarch 2022March 2023Allow1210NoNo
17544658LAST-LEVEL PROJECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR VIRTUAL AND AUGMENTED REALITYDecember 2021March 2023Allow1510NoNo
17520614Integrated Sports Trading Card with Near Field CommunicationNovember 2021October 2023Abandon2320NoNo
17502520METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING A FLOOR PLANOctober 2021January 2023Allow1510YesNo
17449127HYBRID PHOTOGRAMMETRYSeptember 2021March 2023Allow1810NoNo
17381936Method and Apparatus for Determining Experience Quality of VR MultimediaJuly 2021March 2023Allow1910NoNo
17352334DIRECTED IMAGE CAPTUREJune 2021March 2023Allow2110NoNo
17351855METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING TILE-BASED PATH RENDERINGJune 2021February 2023Allow2000NoNo
17340261STYLIZED IMAGE PAINTINGJune 2021February 2023Allow2010NoNo
172408602.5D GRAPHICS RENDERING SYSTEMApril 2021March 2023Allow2310NoNo
17239941Video-Bot based System and Method for Continually improving the Quality of Candidate Screening Process, Candidate Hiring Process and Internal Organizational Promotion Process, using Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning Technology and Statistical Inference based Automated Evaluation of responses that employs a scalable Cloud ArchitectureApril 2021July 2023Abandon2710NoNo
17238023DISPLAY SYSTEMApril 2021March 2023Allow2210NoNo
17211509USER INTERFACE FOR DISPLAYING POINT CLOUDS GENERATED BY A LIDAR DEVICE ON A UAVMarch 2021February 2023Allow2320YesNo
17146702Systems And Methods Of Using Mixed Reality For Interacting With A Display SystemJanuary 2021February 2023Allow2520NoNo
16904996SMARTWEARABLES WITH EMBEDDED NFC (NEAR FIELD COMMUNICATION) AND VITAL HEALTH SENSORS WITH MOBILE/CLOUD DATA AND ULTRA VIOLET GERMICIDAL IRRADIATION (UVGI) TECHNOLOGIESJune 2020December 2022Allow3020NoNo
16747529Method, system for roadway intersection designs and computer program productJanuary 2020June 2023Abandon4120NoNo
16511961TECHNIQUES FOR FEATURE-BASED NEURAL RENDERINGJuly 2019March 2023Allow4460YesYes
16225829ROAD SURFACE DETECTIONDecember 2018February 2023Allow5020NoNo
14326841Computer Graphics Processor and Method for Rendering a Three-Dimensional Image on a Display ScreenJuly 2014October 2015Allow1520YesYes
14064899TRAINING SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR DYNAMICALLY INJECTING EXPRESSION INFORMATION INTO AN ANIMATED FACIAL MESHOctober 2013November 2014Allow1310NoNo
13869761ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR SIMULATING THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF WORKPIECEApril 2013March 2015Allow2310NoNo
13808388IMAGE GENERATION APPARATUS AND IMAGE GENERATION METHODJanuary 2013May 2015Allow2810NoNo
13617913DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DISPLAYING 3D IMAGE AND DEVICE AND METHOD FOR RECEIVING 3D IMAGE BY USING LIGHT OF DIFFERENT WAVELENGTHSSeptember 2012March 2015Allow3020NoNo
13548867IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM FOR GENERATING MULTI-VIEWPOINT IMAGESJuly 2012November 2014Allow2820NoNo
10875943SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR BLENDING DATA SAMPLING TECHNIQUESJune 2004July 2006Allow2510NoNo
10465055METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATICALLY GENERATING FACTORED APPROXIMATIONS FOR ARBITRARY BIDIRECTIONAL REFLECTANCE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONSJune 2003January 2006Allow3120NoNo
10433315AUTOMATIC GENERATING DEVICE FOR 3-D STRUCTURE SHAPE, AUTOMATIC GENERATING METHOD, PROGRAM THEREFOR, AND RECORDING MEDIUM RECORDING THE PROGRAMJune 2003March 2006Allow3320NoNo
10204685APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR VOLUME PROCESSING AND RENDERINGJanuary 2003June 2006Allow4601NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BROOME, SAID A.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
2
Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(100.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
96.7%
Higher than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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, 100.0% 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.

Strategic Recommendations

Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Examiner BROOME, SAID A - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner BROOME, SAID A works in Art Unit 2612 and has examined 27 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 88.9%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 23 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner BROOME, SAID A's allowance rate of 88.9% places them in the 70% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by BROOME, SAID A receive 1.52 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 27% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by BROOME, SAID A is 23 months. This places the examiner in the 85% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +13.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BROOME, SAID A. This interview benefit is in the 50% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 14% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 66.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 90% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 90% 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 frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 7.4% of allowed cases (in the 90% 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 23% percentile). This examiner rarely issues Quayle actions compared to other examiners. Allowances typically come directly without a separate action for formal matters.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Consider after-final amendments: This examiner frequently enters after-final amendments. If you can clearly overcome rejections with claim amendments, file an after-final amendment before resorting to an RCE.
  • Appeal filing as negotiation tool: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
  • Examiner cooperation: This examiner frequently makes examiner's amendments to place applications in condition for allowance. If you are close to allowance, the examiner may help finalize the claims.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.