Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18770027 | Systems and methods for recognising hand-drawn shapes | July 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 18 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18732566 | Pickup and Drop-off Location Identification for Ridesharing and Delivery Via Augmented Reality | June 2024 | September 2025 | Abandon | 16 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18603966 | USER INTERFACE FOR ADJUSTING BOUNDING BOX DIMENSIONS IN CONTACTLESS MEASUREMENT DEVICE | March 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18599906 | Systems and methods for recognising hand-drawn shapes | March 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 24 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 18599237 | BUFFERING A GRAPHICAL OVERLAY TO BE APPLIED TO AN IMAGE | March 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18526855 | GENERATING TILE-ABLE PATTERNS FROM TEXT | December 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18519317 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF MODULATING ANIMATION CURVES | November 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18467291 | SYNTHETIC TABLE GENERATION PIPELINE FOR TRAINING DEEP TABLE EXTRACTION MODELS | September 2023 | August 2025 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18550590 | INTERACTION METHOD AND APPARATUS IN LIVE STREAMING ROOM, DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | September 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18463163 | UNIVERSAL STATE REPRESENTATIONS OF VISUALIZATIONS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATA MODELS | September 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18365041 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING FOLDED JOINTS FOR AN OBJECT RENDERED ON A DIGITAL CANVAS | August 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18272052 | AR SERVICE PLATFORM FOR PROVIDING AUGMENTED REALITY SERVICE | July 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18259302 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING SIGNED DISTANCE FIELD IMAGE OF TEXT, DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | June 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18267838 | METHOD FOR THE AUTOMATED SUPPORT OF AN INSPECTION AND/OR CONDITION MONITORING OF OBJECTS OF A PRODUCTION SYSTEM | June 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18326766 | 3D REFERENCE POINT DETECTION FOR SURVEY FOR VENUE MODEL CONSTRUCTION | May 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18197619 | CONTEXTUAL AUGMENTATION OF MAP INFORMATION USING OVERLAYS | May 2023 | July 2025 | Allow | 27 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18035534 | SKELETAL ANIMATION IN EMBODIED AGENTS | May 2023 | September 2025 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18303898 | UTILIZING A DIFFUSION NEURAL NETWORK FOR MASK AWARE IMAGE AND TYPOGRAPHY EDITING | April 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18176843 | AUTOMATIC IMAGE QUALITY EVALUATION | March 2023 | July 2025 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18114204 | AUGMENTED REALITY VISUALIZER FOR SWIMMING POOLS | February 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17957865 | A VISUALIZATION SYSTEM FOR CREATING A MIXED REALITY GAMING ENVIRONMENT | September 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 38 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17842556 | VIRTUAL REALITY PRESENTATION OF BODY POSTURES OF AVATARS | June 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 45 | 7 | 0 | No | No |
| 17720253 | METHOD FOR USING CBCT FOR AUTOMATICALLY POSITIONING TOOTH | April 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17719043 | METHOD FOR MEDICAL IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION | April 2022 | November 2025 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17658252 | ANATOMICAL MODEL GENERATION | April 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17530760 | Stroke-Guided Sketch Vectorization | November 2021 | August 2025 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17527376 | CONTEXT-BASED VIRTUAL OBJECT RENDERING | November 2021 | July 2025 | Allow | 44 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17525690 | ELECTRONIC CHART APPLICATION WITH ENHANCED ELEMENT SEARCHING AND HIGHLIGHTING USING GENERIC THIRD-PARTY DATA | November 2021 | October 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17065780 | IMAGE GENERATION USING ONE OR MORE NEURAL NETWORKS | October 2020 | May 2023 | Abandon | 31 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16231470 | PRESENTING LOCATION BASED ICONS ON A DEVICE DISPLAY | December 2018 | September 2019 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16231468 | FINDING AND DEPICTING INDIVIDUALS ON A PORTABLE DEVICE DISPLAY | December 2018 | April 2019 | Allow | 3 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15923743 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR REGULARIZING BUILDING FOOTPRINTS USING TAXICAB DISTANCE | March 2018 | August 2019 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15561346 | DISPLAY CONTROL DEVICE FOR CONTROLLING STEREOSCOPIC DISPLAY OF SUPERIMPOSED DISPLAY OBJECT, DISPLAY SYSTEM, DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | September 2017 | May 2019 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14978023 | TEXT ENHANCEMENTS FOR HEAD-MOUNTED DISPLAYS | December 2015 | May 2019 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12713407 | Method and System for Converting Engineering Data into 3D Modeling Data | February 2010 | July 2013 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11877927 | DATA TRANSFER CIRCUIT AND SEMICONDUCTOR INTEGRATED CIRCUIT EQUIPPED WITH DATA TRANSFER CIRCUIT | October 2007 | August 2013 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11105903 | Object identifier | April 2005 | April 2014 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 10792804 | Font memory for a display | March 2004 | January 2007 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CHOW, JEFFREY J.
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, 0.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is less effective here than in most other areas.
⚠ 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 CHOW, JEFFREY J works in Art Unit 2618 and has examined 13 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 84.6%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 40 months.
Examiner CHOW, JEFFREY J's allowance rate of 84.6% places them in the 60% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by CHOW, JEFFREY J receive 2.54 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 74% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by CHOW, JEFFREY J 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 -22.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CHOW, JEFFREY J. This interview benefit is in the 1% 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, 37.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 86% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 25.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 34% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 17% 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, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 98% 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 24% 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.