Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16973369 | DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE | December 2020 | April 2024 | Abandon | 40 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17057530 | DISPLAY DRIVING METHOD, DISPLAY DRIVE DEVICE, DISPLAY DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | November 2020 | April 2024 | Abandon | 41 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17037408 | ASSISTIVE DEVICE FOR NON-VISUALLY DISCERNING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL (3D) REAL-WORLD AREA SURROUNDING A USER | September 2020 | October 2023 | Allow | 36 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 16988793 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR REFERENCE IMAGING AND OPTICAL OBJECT RECOGNITION | August 2020 | October 2023 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16938874 | DISPLAY DEVICE | July 2020 | January 2024 | Abandon | 41 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16923444 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE | July 2020 | September 2024 | Allow | 51 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16959002 | DISPLAY PANEL, DRIVING CONTROL METHOD THEREOF, DRIVING CONTROL CIRCUIT, AND DISPLAY DEVICE | June 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 48 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16802354 | Systems and Methods for External Off-Time Pixel Sensing | February 2020 | August 2024 | Allow | 54 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16801843 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATED CONTROL OF HUMAN INHABITED CHARACTERS | February 2020 | September 2024 | Allow | 55 | 10 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16708410 | TOUCH SENSING DEVICE AND DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME | December 2019 | August 2024 | Allow | 56 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16662133 | FINGERPRINT RECOGNIZING DEVICE AND DISPLAY DEVICE | October 2019 | October 2023 | Abandon | 48 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16654285 | OPTICAL SENSING SYSTEMS AND DEVICES INCLUDING APERTURES SUPPLANTING PHOTODIODES FOR INCREASED LIGHT THROUGHPUT | October 2019 | November 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16533425 | OPTICAL SENSING OF FINGERPRINTS OR OTHER PATTERNS ON OR NEAR DISPLAY SCREEN USING OPTICAL DETECTORS INTEGRATED TO DISPLAY SCREEN | August 2019 | June 2023 | Allow | 46 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16482289 | MODIFY BRIGHTNESS OF DISPLAYS USING PIXEL LUMINANCE | July 2019 | October 2023 | Allow | 50 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16459698 | SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME | July 2019 | August 2024 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16404518 | DISPLAY DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE HAVING THE SAME | May 2019 | September 2023 | Allow | 52 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16387840 | ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING TOUCH SENSOR | April 2019 | September 2023 | Allow | 53 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16352745 | Electronic Devices With Ambient Light Sensor Systems | March 2019 | January 2024 | Abandon | 58 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16132127 | BIOMETRIC INFORMATION DETECTING DEVICE AND DISPLAY APPARATUS HAVING THE SAME | September 2018 | October 2023 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16063208 | HEAD MOUNTED DISPLAY COOPERATIVE DISPLAY SYSTEM, SYSTEM INCLUDING DISPLAY APPARATUS AND HEAD MOUNTED DISPLAY, AND DISPLAY APPARATUS THEREOF | June 2018 | November 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | No | No |
| 15993761 | TOUCH DISPLAY DEVICE AND TOUCH PANEL | May 2018 | August 2023 | Allow | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15926570 | ALWAYS-AVAILABLE INPUT THROUGH FINGER INSTRUMENTATION | March 2018 | September 2023 | Allow | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15533353 | DISPLAY DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD | June 2017 | March 2019 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15120758 | MANIPULATION APPARATUS | August 2016 | April 2019 | Allow | 32 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CASAREZ, BENJAMIN X..
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.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner CASAREZ, BENJAMIN X. works in Art Unit 2619 and has examined 24 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 70.8%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 52 months.
Examiner CASAREZ, BENJAMIN X.'s allowance rate of 70.8% places them in the 35% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by CASAREZ, BENJAMIN X. receive 5.83 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 99% 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 CASAREZ, BENJAMIN X. is 52 months. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +13.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CASAREZ, BENJAMIN X.. This interview benefit is in the 51% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 9.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 6% 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 12.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 15% 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 73% 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 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.
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 19% 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 25% 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.