Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18911591 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE HAVING AT LEAST ONE CHOLESTERIC LIQUID CRYSTAL LAYER | October 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18584843 | METHOD, APPARATUS, DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM FOR INTERACTING IN A VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT | February 2024 | November 2025 | Abandon | 21 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18029332 | Back Cover and Terminal | March 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17477945 | DISPLAY PANEL FOR PROCESSING BIOMETRICS USING TFT PHOTODETECTORS INTEGRATED THEREON | September 2021 | June 2025 | Allow | 45 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11486865 | INPUT DEVICE FOR CONTROL OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE DESIGNED TO ASSIST PERSONS OF REDUCED VISUAL ACUITY | July 2006 | September 2007 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10982889 | LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY AND DRIVING METHOD OF THE SAME | November 2004 | June 2006 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10836624 | LOCATION TRACKING DEVICE | May 2004 | August 2007 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10765039 | GAMMA VOLTAGE GENERATOR AND METHOD THEREOF FOR GENERATING INDIVIDUALLY TUNABLE GAMMA VOLTAGES | January 2004 | February 2008 | Allow | 48 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10751505 | LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY AND DRIVING METHOD OF THE SAME | January 2004 | October 2005 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10447238 | IMAGE DISPLAY METHOD AND APPARATUS | May 2003 | January 2007 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10442170 | METHOD OF DATA INPUT INTO A COMPUTER | May 2003 | August 2005 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10204596 | ELECTRONIC PAPER, ELECTRONIC PAPERFILE AND ELECTRONIC PEN | August 2002 | September 2006 | Allow | 49 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 09988246 | CIRCUIT FOR DRIVING FLAT DISPLAY DEVICE | November 2001 | February 2004 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 09849745 | PORTABLE COMMUNICATION DEVICE WITH VIRTUAL IMAGE DISPLAY MODULE | May 2001 | February 2006 | Allow | 57 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner LAO, LUNYI.
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.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner LAO, LUNYI works in Art Unit 2621 and has examined 11 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 39 months.
Examiner LAO, LUNYI'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.
On average, applications examined by LAO, LUNYI receive 2.09 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 55% 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 LAO, LUNYI is 39 months. This places the examiner in the 27% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LAO, LUNYI. 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.
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.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 66.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 90% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 91% 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.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 9.1% of allowed cases (in the 92% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
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.