USPTO Examiner HERMANN KIRK W - Art Unit 2621

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
19002189Predictive Gamma Algorithm for Multiple Display Refresh RatesDecember 2024October 2025Allow900NoNo
18964854GENERATION OF A DIGITAL PAD ON AN INTERACTIVE DISPLAY DEVICEDecember 2024January 2026Abandon1410NoNo
18939333DISPLAY DRIVING DEVICE CONFIGURED TO COMPARE A FIRST DITHERING MAP WITH A SECOND DITHERING MAP, AND DISPLAY DRIVING METHODNovember 2024September 2025Allow1100YesNo
18815757EMISSION CONTROL DRIVER INCLUDING A STAGE WITH FIRST AND SECOND PULL-UP TRANSISTORS THAT OUTPUT AN OUTPUT SIGNALAugust 2024August 2025Allow1110NoNo
18814427STEREOSCOPIC IMAGE DISPLAY SYSTEMAugust 2024November 2025Abandon1510NoNo
18806450GATE DRIVING CIRCUIT AND DISPLAY APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAMEAugust 2024September 2025Allow1310YesNo
18759140DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING A DISPLAY DRIVING COMPONENT HAVING A VOLTAGE STABILIZING CIRCUITJune 2024October 2025Allow1510NoNo
18754193IMAGE DISPLAY DEVICE CONFIGURED TO CONVERT ROW DISPLAY DATA INTO UPDATE INSTRUCTIONS, IMAGE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, AND UPDATING METHODJune 2024October 2025Allow1610NoNo
18645396SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADJUSTING IMAGE BASED ON PHYSIOLOGICAL INFORMATION AND POSTUREApril 2024September 2025Allow1710NoNo
18695067VIRTUAL SPACE IMAGE GENERATION DEVICE GENERATES A VIRTUAL SPACE BASED ON MOVEMENT OF A USER'S VIEWPOINT AND METHODMarch 2024September 2025Allow1810NoNo
18610146EXTENDED-REALITY CONTROLLER FOR PROVIDING DIFFERENT HAPTIC FEEDBACK EVENTS BASED ON POSITIONS AND MAGNITUDES OF USER INPUTS, AND SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS OF USE THEREOFMarch 2024August 2025Allow1720YesNo
18598852CORRECTING TOUCH INTERFERENCE FOR ACTIVE PENMarch 2024July 2025Allow1710YesNo
18585822DISPLAY PANEL INCLUDES A PLURALITY OF HIGH-POTENTIAL VOLTAGE LINES AND LOW-POTENTIAL VOLTAGE LINES ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF A GATE DRIVING CIRCUIT AND DISPLAY DEVICEFebruary 2024July 2025Allow1710NoNo
18683777INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE FOR SIMULTANEOUSLY ADJUSTING SENSITIVITY AND DEAD ZONE OF A CONTROLLERFebruary 2024July 2025Allow1710NoNo
18436328SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE CONFIGURED TO DETECT AN ABNORMALITY OF AN EXTERNAL OSCILLATION SIGNAL, DISPLAY APPARATUS, AND VEHICLEFebruary 2024June 2025Allow1620NoNo
18292812METHOD FOR DRIVING DISPLAY PANEL THAT DURING A BLANKING TIME PHASE LOADS A COMPENSATION VOLTAGE TO EACH DATA LINE, DISPLAY DRIVE CIRCUIT, AND DISPLAY DEVICEJanuary 2024June 2025Allow1710YesNo
18499565ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING A SENSOR LAYER FOR SENSING TYPES OF INPUTNovember 2023July 2025Allow2030YesNo
18383048DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD OF OPERATING A DISPLAY DEVICE THAT PERFORMS A SENSING OPERATION ON AT LEAST ONE PIXEL IN A BLANK PERIOD OF A FRAME PERIODOctober 2023June 2025Allow2010NoNo
18210499TOUCH INPUT DEVICE THAT OUTPUTS A DETECTION SIGNAL BASED ON FIRST AND SECOND CAPACITANCE INFORMATIONJune 2023July 2025Allow2550YesNo
18199372DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING A DUMMY PIXEL CIRCUIT IN A NON-DISPLAY AREA AND DRIVING METHOD FOR THE SAMEMay 2023October 2025Allow2950NoNo
18157901ARTIFICIAL REALITY SYSTEMS INCLUDING DIGITAL AND ANALOG CONTROL OF PIXEL INTENSITYJanuary 2023June 2025Allow2930YesNo
17843596DISPLAY METHOD FOR INTERACTIVE SYSTEM INCLUDING A DISPLAY DIVIDED INTO A DISPLAY AREA AND AN EXTENSION AREA, INTERACTIVE SYSTEM, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICEJune 2022October 2025Allow4050YesNo
17245974SYSTEM, METHOD, AND APPARATUS FOR PULSE-WIDTH MODULATION SEQUENCEApril 2021May 2025Allow4840YesYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner HERMANN, KIRK W.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
1
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(100.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
96.8%
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, 100.0% 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

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

Examiner HERMANN, KIRK W - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner HERMANN, KIRK W works in Art Unit 2621 and has examined 1 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 48 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner HERMANN, KIRK W'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 HERMANN, KIRK W receive 4.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 97% 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 HERMANN, KIRK W is 48 months. This places the examiner in the 8% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 38% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.

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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 91% percentile among all examiners. 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.

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.
  • Appeal filing as negotiation tool: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
  • 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.