USPTO Examiner ARONOVICH OLGA - Art Unit 2621

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18882585SENSOR CONTROLLER, ACTIVE PEN, AND COMMUNICATION METHODSeptember 2024October 2025Allow1310NoNo
18882538PEN STATE DETECTION CIRCUIT, METHOD, AND DEVICE, AND PARAMETER SUPPLY DEVICESeptember 2024September 2025Allow1210NoNo
18769856NOISE COMPENSATION USING A SPATIAL NOISE MODELJuly 2024July 2025Allow1210NoNo
18768838BACKLIGHT PIXEL DRIVING CIRCUIT AND DISPLAY DEVICEJuly 2024October 2025Allow1510NoNo
18766781SHIFT REGISTER CIRCUITJuly 2024September 2025Allow1410NoNo
18721895EYE SENSINGJune 2024October 2025Allow1610NoNo
18745452Display Device and Pen Touch SystemJune 2024October 2025Allow1610NoNo
18669984MULTI-OBJECT TRACKING USING CORRELATION FILTERS IN VIDEO ANALYTICS APPLICATIONSMay 2024October 2025Allow1720NoNo
18686075INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAMFebruary 2024June 2025Allow1610YesNo
18682271VIRTUAL INPUT ELEMENT DISPLAY METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND READABLE STORAGE MEDIUMFebruary 2024August 2025Allow1810NoNo
18427434DEVICES, METHODS, AND GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACES FOR DISPLAYING SETS OF CONTROLS IN RESPONSE TO GAZE AND/OR GESTURE INPUTSJanuary 2024April 2025Allow1410YesNo
18580041DISPLAY APPARATUS, DRIVING METHOD, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICEJanuary 2024October 2025Allow2110NoNo
18399877DISPLAY DEVICEDecember 2023November 2025Allow2210NoNo
18395374INTERACTIVE METHOD, APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUMDecember 2023August 2025Allow2020NoNo
18504192NAVIGATION DEVICE WITH IMPROVED LIGHT UTILIZATION EFFICIENCY AND OPTICAL ENGINE THEREOFNovember 2023August 2025Allow2220NoNo
18558487PIXEL CIRCUIT, PIXEL DRIVING METHOD AND DISPLAY DEVICENovember 2023October 2025Allow2310NoNo
18471103REGISTRATION DEVICE AND REGISTRATION METHODSeptember 2023October 2025Abandon2420NoNo
18330070MOTOR VEHICLEJune 2023May 2025Allow2440NoNo
18329991MOTOR VEHICLEJune 2023June 2025Allow2550NoNo
18308490DISPLAY DEVICEApril 2023June 2025Allow2630NoNo
17723510HUMAN EMULATION ROBOT DISPLAY SYSTEMApril 2022December 2025Abandon4420NoNo
17483832STRAPLESS AUTONOMOUS EXTENDED REALITY VIEWERSeptember 2021August 2025Allow4720YesNo
17469109HYBRID SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LOW-LATENCY USER INPUT PROCESSING AND FEEDBACKSeptember 2021June 2025Allow4640NoNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner ARONOVICH, OLGA - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner ARONOVICH, OLGA works in Art Unit 2621 and has examined 2 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 100.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 47 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner ARONOVICH, OLGA's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 95% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by ARONOVICH, OLGA receive 3.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 86% 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 ARONOVICH, OLGA is 47 months. This places the examiner in the 9% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ARONOVICH, OLGA. This interview benefit is in the 14% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 33.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 72% 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 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 1% 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.

Petition Practice

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 Cooperation and Flexibility

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 24% 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.
  • 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.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

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.