USPTO Examiner LE SARAH - Art Unit 2614

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18613077IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MAPPING ERRORS OR ARTIFACTSMarch 2024May 2025Allow1321YesNo
18598982SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TIMELINE VISUALIZATIONMarch 2024March 2025Allow1210YesNo
18533301AR DISPLAY APPARATUS AND AR DISPLAY METHODDecember 2023June 2025Abandon1820NoNo
18483028Systems and methods for recolouring vector graphicsOctober 2023November 2024Allow1310NoNo
18450317AUGMENTED REALITY INTERFACE AND METHOD OF USEAugust 2023June 2025Abandon2220NoNo
18333766Preserving Document Design Using Font SynthesisJune 2023June 2024Allow1211YesNo
18072086CONTROL DEVICE, CONTROL METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM FOR DISPLAYING THREE-DIMENSIONAL IMAGENovember 2022June 2025Abandon3020YesNo
17963947TECHNOLOGY FOR REPLICATING AND/OR CONTROLLING OBJECTS IN EXTENDED REALITYOctober 2022October 2024Abandon2410NoNo
17950841GENERATING MULTIPLE RESOLUTIONS OF A VIRTUAL REALITY ENVIRONMENTSeptember 2022June 2025Allow3310NoNo
17799762TERMINAL DEVICE AND RF POWER SUPPLY DEVICEAugust 2022September 2024Allow2620NoNo
17887815Digital Object Animation Authoring InterfacesAugust 2022May 2025Allow3310YesNo
17875428INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICEJuly 2022January 2025Abandon3021YesNo
17874770HEAD-FRAME SYMBOLOGY ISOLATION FOR HEAD WORN DISPLAY (HWD)July 2022March 2025Allow3110YesNo
17851448VIRTUAL SELFIE STICKJune 2022February 2025Allow3140NoNo
17805997ANALYSIS SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SIGNAL EYE DIAGRAMSJune 2022February 2025Abandon3210NoNo
17743432STATIC ELECTRICITY VISUALIZATION SYSTEMMay 2022January 2025Allow3210YesNo
17735592Systems and Methods for 3D Registration of Curves and Surfaces Using Local Differential InformationMay 2022December 2024Allow3230YesNo
17714496CONTEXTUAL AWARENESS OF USER INTERFACE MENUSApril 2022January 2024Allow2240YesNo
17693881MEDIA COMPOSITOR FOR COMPUTER-GENERATED REALITYMarch 2022June 2023Allow1520YesNo
17687943METHOD, DEVICE, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR GENERATING VIRTUAL IMAGEMarch 2022September 2024Allow3120NoNo
17673984GRAPH DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING DISPLAY CONTROL FUNCTION FOR CONVERTING TWO-DIMENSIONAL GRAPH TO THREE-DIMENSIONAL GRAPH AND DISPLAYING THREE-DIMENSIONAL GRAPH, AND CORRESPONDING GRAPH DISPLAY METHOD AND NONTRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE RECORDING MEDIUMFebruary 2022August 2023Allow1710YesNo
17650214METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONFIGURING COLOR, DEVICE, MEDIUM AND PRODUCTFebruary 2022March 2025Allow3721YesNo
17589496CHANGING LCD DISPLAY TIMING CONTROLLER SETTINGS FOR DIFFERENT GRAPHICS PROCESSOR REQUIREMENTSJanuary 2022November 2023Allow2100NoNo
17580383APPARATUS, A METHOD AND A COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR ROTATING DISPLAYED VISUAL INFORMATIONJanuary 2022April 2024Allow2720NoNo
17646117METHOD FOR GENERATING VIRTUAL CHARACTER, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUMDecember 2021February 2024Abandon2510NoNo
17644291Methods and Systems for Rendering View-Dependent Images Using 2D ImagesDecember 2021October 2023Allow2211YesNo
17644145CONVERTING BOREHOLE IMAGES INTO THREE DIMENSIONAL STRUCTURES FOR NUMERICAL MODELING AND SIMULATION APPLICATIONSDecember 2021December 2023Allow2400NoNo
17643893ENHANCED INTERACTIVE FEATURES FOR A VIDEO PRESENTATION SYSTEMDecember 2021June 2025Allow4240YesNo
17615148ELEMENT DATA MANAGEMENT APPARATUS, ELEMENT DATA MANAGEMENT METHOD, PROGRAM, AND DATA STRUCTURE OF ELEMENT DATANovember 2021January 2025Allow3831YesNo
17534205PERSONAL SPACE BUBBLE IN VR ENVIRONMENTSNovember 2021December 2024Allow3730YesNo
17531277INFORMATION DISPLAYING METHOD AND COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM IN WHICH PROGRAM FOR EXECUTING INFORMATION DISPLAYING METHOD IS STOREDNovember 2021May 2024Abandon2930NoNo
17452598VISUALIZATION OF RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ORDER COMPONENTSOctober 2021September 2024Allow3530YesNo
17452568GENERATION OF STYLIZED DRAWING OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL SHAPES USING NEURAL NETWORKSOctober 2021September 2023Allow2301NoNo
17362908PER-PIXEL VARIABLE RATE SHADING CONTROLS USING STENCIL DATAJune 2021March 2024Allow3320YesNo
17357931Systems and methods for recolouring vector graphicsJune 2021July 2023Allow2410YesNo
17321211Computationally-Efficient Generation of Simulations of Cloth-Like Materials Using Bilinear Element ModelsMay 2021October 2023Abandon2910NoNo
17245763SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TIMELINE VISUALIZATIONApril 2021December 2023Allow3120NoNo
17235067Contrast Ratio Color PickerApril 2021September 2023Allow2930YesNo
17225107INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAMApril 2021October 2023Abandon3020NoNo
17204749LIGHT-RESAMPLING WITH SURFACE SIMILARITY TESTMarch 2021March 2024Allow3520YesYes
17186593FACE POSE ESTIMATION/THREE-DIMENSIONAL FACE RECONSTRUCTION METHOD, APPARATUS, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICEFebruary 2021November 2023Allow3350YesNo
17256201APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR GRAPHICS VIRTUALIZATION WITH LATE SYNCHRONIZATIONDecember 2020March 2024Allow3910YesNo
16723866MULTIMODAL APPROACH FOR AVATAR ANIMATIONDecember 2019October 2023Abandon4550YesNo
16494356AR DISPLAY APPARATUS AND AR DISPLAY METHODSeptember 2019September 2023Allow4850NoNo
16040602DATA PLOT PROCESSINGJuly 2018April 2019Allow910YesNo
15250270SYSTEMS, APPARATUSES AND METHODS FOR IMAGE MESH WARPINGAugust 2016April 2018Allow2010YesNo
14830726THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING METHOD AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS THEREOFAugust 2015August 2018Allow3620NoNo
14257129IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MODIFYING A DISPLAY TEXTURE OF AN IMAGEApril 2014January 2019Allow5720NoYes
14015266DEVICE AND METHOD FOR ADJUSTING TRANSPARENCY OF DISPLAY USED FOR PACKAGING A PRODUCTAugust 2013April 2016Allow3250YesNo
13550985Automatic Selection of Different Visualizations for the Organization of Multivariate DataJuly 2012September 2017Allow6050YesYes
13264712CONVERGENT MATRIX FACTORIZATION BASED ENTIRE FRAME IMAGE PROCESSINGOctober 2011December 2015Allow5070YesNo
13154594AUTOMATIC SELECTION OF DIFFERENT VISUALIZATIONS FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF MULTIVARIATE DATAJune 2011July 2015Allow4950YesNo
13117698Rendering Transparent PrimitivesMay 2011November 2015Allow5360YesNo
12848351RESIZING OBJECTS IN REGIONS OF VIRTUAL UNIVERSESAugust 2010December 2014Allow5370YesYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner LE, SARAH.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
2
Examiner Affirmed
2
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
7.1%
Lower than average

What This Means

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.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
4
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(25.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
3
(75.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
31.6%
Lower 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, 25.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable reconsideration.

Strategic Recommendations

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 LE, SARAH - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner LE, SARAH works in Art Unit 2614 and has examined 52 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 78.8%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 31 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner LE, SARAH's allowance rate of 78.8% places them in the 40% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by LE, SARAH receive 2.42 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 83% 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by LE, SARAH is 31 months. This places the examiner in the 36% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +28.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LE, SARAH. This interview benefit is in the 79% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 30.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 51% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 4.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 2% 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.

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 8% 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 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 44% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 25.0% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 96% 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 Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 16% 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 21% 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:

  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.

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.