USPTO Examiner AWAD AMR A - Art Unit 2621

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
19013194SCAN CIRCUIT, DISPLAY SUBSTRATE, AND DISPLAY APPARATUSJanuary 2025January 2026Allow1210NoNo
18711982DISPLAY METHOD APPLIED TO DISPLAY DEVICE, DISPLAY DEVICE, AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUSMay 2024August 2025Allow1510YesNo
18639542DISPLAY DEVICE, DRIVING METHOD THEREOF, AND ELECTRONIC PAPERApril 2024March 2026Allow2320NoNo
18515149Electric Roller Skate SystemsNovember 2023March 2026Allow2810NoNo
18491934ORIENTED-GRID ENCODER FOR 3D IMPLICIT REPRESENTATIONOctober 2023January 2026Allow2720NoNo
18478378REAL-TIME POSE ESTIMATION THROUGH BIPARTITE MATCHING OF HEATMAPS OF JOINTS AND PERSONS AND DISPLAY OF VISUALIZATIONS BASED ON THE SAMESeptember 2023November 2025Allow2610NoNo
18454385SIGNAL MONITORING METHOD AND APPARATUSAugust 2023December 2025Allow2810NoNo
18345986SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INHIBITING MOVEMENT OF SHOTGUN GATE VIA COMPUTER IMPLEMENTED PROCESSJune 2023March 2026Allow3210YesNo
18313722WIRELESS MODULE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAMEMay 2023November 2025Allow3010YesNo
17899302MULTI-DIRECTIONAL EXPANDABLE DISPLAYSAugust 2022January 2025Abandon2810YesNo
17881591METHOD AND SOFTWRE FOR SELECTION OF BACKGROUND IMAGE FOR A DISPLAY SCREEN OR SOFTWARE OUTPUT WINDOWAugust 2022November 2024Abandon2710NoNo
17873940SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING A PLATFORM FOR VIRTUAL AUGMENTED REALITY FITTING OF AN ITEMJuly 2022October 2024Abandon2710NoNo
17763182PIXEL DRIVE CIRCUIT AND DRIVING METHOD THEREOF, AND DISPLAY PANELMarch 2022June 2025Allow3930NoNo
16702577INTERCHANGEABLE DISPLAY OF INFORMATION PANELS ON A DASHBOARDDecember 2019April 2020Abandon400NoNo
16365639INPUT DEVICEMarch 2019August 2019Abandon500NoNo
16125449Electronic Devices Having Low Refresh Rate Display Pixels With Reduced Sensitivity to Oxide Transistor Threshold VoltageSeptember 2018January 2019Abandon500NoNo
15981759PROXIMITY-BASED POWER SWITCH APPEARANCEMay 2018February 2019Abandon900NoNo
15792324SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REGULATING VOLTAGES IN A DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING AN INTEGRATED SENSING DEVICEOctober 2017January 2018Abandon300NoNo
15713140MICRO LIGHT EMITTING DIODE TESTINGSeptember 2017March 2018Abandon600NoNo
15712460PREDICTIVE TEMPERATURE COMPENSATIONSeptember 2017July 2018Abandon1000NoNo
15709398AUGMENTED REALITY SYSTEMSeptember 2017March 2018Abandon500NoNo
15687374Backlight Units With Support Posts and Cavity Height MonitoringAugust 2017May 2018Abandon900NoNo
15662878BACKLIGHT UNIT AND LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY DEVICE COMPRISING THE SAMEJuly 2017March 2018Abandon800NoNo
15654334Hand or Finger Detection Device and a Method ThereofJuly 2017November 2017Abandon400NoNo
15606844HEAD MOUNTED DISPLAY APPARATUSMay 2017July 2018Allow1420NoNo
15450032DISPLAY APPARATUSMarch 2017December 2017Abandon900NoNo
15414869Method for Controlling Mobile Terminal Screen Display and Mobile TerminalJanuary 2017August 2017Abandon700NoNo
15250548ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR ONBOARD DISPLAY CONTROLAugust 2016August 2017Abandon1100NoNo
15242370METHOD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR ADJUSTING BRIGHTNESS ON SCREENAugust 2016August 2017Abandon1200NoNo
15240355DISPLAY BRIGHTNESS CONTROL METHODS AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENTAugust 2016August 2017Abandon1200NoNo
15233768Preventing False Positives with an Interactive CordAugust 2016February 2017Abandon600NoNo
15227244DISPLAY PANEL AND PIXEL CIRCUITAugust 2016April 2017Abandon900NoNo
15195713WRIST-WORN TERMINAL DEVICE AND DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD THEREOFJune 2016March 2017Abandon800NoNo
15165463SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COMPLETING A CALL UTILIZING A HEAD-MOUNTED DISPLAY AND A COMMUNICATION DEVICEMay 2016November 2018Abandon3020NoNo
15142177TOUCH PANEL MEMBER AND PROCESS FOR PRODUCING SAME, TOUCH PANEL, AND TOUCH PANEL DISPLAY DEVICEApril 2016February 2017Abandon1000NoNo
15141730Electronic Device, Operation Control Method, and Computer Program ProductApril 2016March 2017Abandon1000NoNo
15085046DISPLAY DEVICEMarch 2016March 2017Abandon1100NoNo
14915223SENSOR FOR DETECTING PRESENCE OF MATERIALFebruary 2016February 2017Abandon1100NoNo
15005898ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING HANDWRITTEN DOCUMENT DATAJanuary 2016December 2016Abandon1000NoNo
14990342DISPLAY APPARATUSJanuary 2016September 2016Abandon800NoNo
14950561ELECTRONIC DEVICE, METHOD AND STORAGE MEDIUMNovember 2015June 2016Abandon700NoNo
14786097PIXEL STRUCTURE, DISPLAY SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY DEVICEOctober 2015November 2018Abandon3730NoNo
14848789LIQUID CRYSTAL OPTICAL DEVICE, CONTROL DEVICE OF LIQUID CRYSTAL OPTICAL DEVICE, AND IMAGE DISPLAY DEVICESeptember 2015March 2016Abandon600NoNo
14651244INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAMJune 2015April 2016Abandon1000NoNo
14617627INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD AND STORAGE MEDIUMFebruary 2015December 2015Abandon1000NoNo
14590292Input ApparatusJanuary 2015January 2016Abandon1300NoNo
14554950TOUCH SENSORNovember 2014July 2016Abandon2010NoNo
14261112EDITING INTERFACEApril 2014November 2020Allow6080YesYes
14228872IMAGE-BASED INTERACTIVE DEVICE AND IMPLEMENTING METHOD THEREOFMarch 2014May 2016Abandon2620NoNo
14346963LIQUID CRYSTAL PANEL, DRIVING METHOD AND LIQUID CRYSTAL DEVICEMarch 2014December 2016Abandon3321NoNo
14213576METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING USER INPUT IN A THREE-DIMENSIONAL FIELDMarch 2014September 2014Abandon700NoNo
14189590METHOD FOR DETERMINING TOUCH INPUT OBJECT AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE THEREOFFebruary 2014September 2016Abandon3130NoNo
14189592METHOD FOR DRIVING TOUCH PANELFebruary 2014July 2016Abandon2920NoNo
14099798Bezel Gesture TechniquesDecember 2013December 2016Abandon3630NoNo
14082074TOUCH PANEL ELECTRODE STRUCTURENovember 2013June 2016Abandon3120YesNo
13871004ELECTRONIC APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR OPERATING THE SAMEApril 2013August 2016Abandon3940YesNo
13861228METHOD AND DEVICE FOR TACTILELY READING TIME ON A TOUCHSCREENApril 2013March 2014Abandon1100NoNo
13726008CONTROL CIRCUIT FOR DISPLAY DEVICE AND COMPUTER ASSEMBLY USING SAMEDecember 2012October 2013Abandon1000NoNo
13516620CONTENT DISPLAY DEVICEJune 2012January 2015Abandon3120NoNo
13498149DISPLAY DEVICE AND DISPLAY METHOD THEREFORJune 2012September 2014Abandon3010NoNo
13216502Position IndicatorAugust 2011March 2014Abandon3110NoNo
10280419METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING THE MOTION OF STEREOSCOPIC CAMERAS USING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL MOUSEOctober 2002June 2005Allow3110NoNo

Appeals Overview

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

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
0
(0.0%)
Examiner Reversed
1
(100.0%)
Reversal Percentile
93.8%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
2
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(50.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(50.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
79.3%
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, 50.0% 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

Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.

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

Examiner AWAD, AMR A - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner AWAD, AMR A works in Art Unit 2621 and has examined 49 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 6.1%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 10 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner AWAD, AMR A's allowance rate of 6.1% places them in the 1% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by AWAD, AMR A receive 0.80 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by AWAD, AMR A is 10 months. This places the examiner in the 100% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +29.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by AWAD, AMR A. This interview benefit is in the 77% 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, 6.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 3% 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 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 62.5% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 67% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.

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:

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.
  • 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.