Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16772979 | HEAD-UP DISPLAY DEVICE | June 2020 | November 2021 | Abandon | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15971072 | SPATIAL MOTION-BASED USER INTERACTIVITY | May 2018 | August 2020 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15761820 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR CONTROLLING ANGULAR INTENSITY PATTERNS IN A REAL SPACE 3D IMAGE | March 2018 | June 2020 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15359501 | REPROGRAMABLE MULTI-HOST, MULTI-CHARACTER SET KEYBOARD | November 2016 | May 2020 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 15244642 | AIR MOUSE REMOTE CONTROLLER OPTIMIZATION METHOD AND APPARATUS, AIR MOUSE REMOTE CONTROLLER, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | August 2016 | July 2018 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15093410 | HEAD MOUNTED DISPLAY LINKED TO A TOUCH SENSITIVE INPUT DEVICE | April 2016 | October 2018 | Abandon | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14883040 | SEGMENT DISPLAY DEVICE | October 2015 | June 2018 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14550845 | TRANSPARENT FORCE SENSOR WITH STRAIN RELIEF | November 2014 | August 2018 | Abandon | 45 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14494768 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, FOR TRACK PREDICTION OF AN INPUT DEVICE | September 2014 | August 2018 | Abandon | 46 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 14494388 | WEARABLE INPUT DEVICE | September 2014 | July 2018 | Abandon | 46 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14174862 | TOUCH PANEL AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF | February 2014 | October 2015 | Abandon | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14101784 | ACCORDION-STYLE COMPUTER KEY ENTRY DEVICE WITH FLAT, DISPLAY-PROTECTING, AND TILTED CONFIGURATIONS | December 2013 | December 2015 | Abandon | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14052762 | DISPLAY PANEL AND METHOD OF DISPLAYING IMAGES | October 2013 | October 2015 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13994528 | DRIVING DEVICE, DRIVING METHOD, AND SYSTEM FOR DISPLAY DEVICE | June 2013 | September 2015 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13993905 | TIME INFORMATION ACCEPTING APPARATUS, TIME INFORMATION ACCEPTING METHOD, COMPUTER PROGRAM AND RECORDING MEDIUM | June 2013 | December 2015 | Abandon | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13901577 | TOUCH PEN STRUCTURE | May 2013 | July 2015 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13989299 | TOUCH SCREEN PANEL AND IMAGE DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING SAME | May 2013 | October 2015 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13860691 | TOUCH MODULE WITH LIQUID CRYSTAL LENS AND DISPLAY APPARATUS HAVING THE SAME | April 2013 | August 2015 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13860490 | DISPLAY DEVICE, DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | April 2013 | November 2015 | Abandon | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13633073 | MOUSE WITH IMPROVED INPUT MECHANISMS USING TOUCH SENSORS | October 2012 | August 2015 | Abandon | 35 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13615694 | ELECTROPHORETIC DISPLAY APPARATUS | September 2012 | October 2015 | Abandon | 37 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13610894 | METHOD FOR CONTROLLING EXECUTION OF CAMERA RELATED FUNCTIONS BY REFERRING TO GESTURE PATTERN AND RELATED COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM | September 2012 | September 2015 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13610881 | THREE-DIMENSIONAL INTERACTIVE SYSTEM | September 2012 | September 2015 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13270412 | DRIVING APPARATUS AND DRIVING METHOD | October 2011 | September 2015 | Abandon | 47 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13252807 | USER INTERFACE FOR SELECTING A PHOTO TAG | October 2011 | May 2012 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13064396 | Method for adjusting a display appearance of a keyboard layout displayed on a touch display unit | March 2011 | September 2015 | Abandon | 54 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12970358 | SENSING DEVICE OF SURFACE ACOUSTIC WAVE TOUCH PANEL | December 2010 | October 2015 | Abandon | 57 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 12970354 | USER INTERFACE APPARATUS AND USER INTERFACING METHOD BASED ON WEARABLE COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT | December 2010 | June 2015 | Abandon | 54 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12864902 | TOUCH SENSOR PANEL HAVING A SPLIT-ELECTRODE STRUCTURE AND A TOUCH SENSOR DEVICE PROVIDED WITH THE SAME | July 2010 | August 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 12845580 | Touch Control Apparatus, Associated Sensing Control Apparatus and Method Thereof | July 2010 | January 2016 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 12721684 | VIEW NAVIGATION ON MOBILE DEVICE | March 2010 | October 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12162578 | Character Input Device | July 2008 | October 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11003321 | APPARATUS FOR GENERATING RAMP RESET WAVEFORM FOR DISPLAY PANEL AND DESIGN METHOD THEREFOR | December 2004 | September 2007 | Allow | 33 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10996828 | SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING LED DEVICES | November 2004 | August 2007 | Allow | 33 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10996933 | PLASMA DISPLAY PANEL AND DRIVING METHOD THEREOF | November 2004 | November 2007 | Allow | 36 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10974946 | PLASMA DISPLAY PANEL DRIVING METHOD | October 2004 | August 2007 | Allow | 33 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10937715 | AUTOMATIC ELECTRONIC DISPLAY ALIGNMENT | September 2004 | August 2006 | Allow | 23 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10847588 | SELF LIGHT EMITTING TYPE DISPLAY DEVICE | May 2004 | March 2007 | Allow | 34 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10752444 | DISPLAY UNIT | January 2004 | July 2007 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10751529 | LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY DEVICE AND INSPECTING METHOD THEREOF | January 2004 | March 2007 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10739575 | ADVANCED RUGGEDIZED AUGMENTED REALITY INSTRUMENTED SELF CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS | December 2003 | January 2006 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10636746 | SENSOR CONTROLS FOR POINTING AND CONTROL DEVICE AND SUCH DEVICE | August 2003 | August 2006 | Allow | 36 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 10619277 | LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY AND METHOD FOR DRIVING THE SAME | July 2003 | March 2006 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10332419 | TOUCH PANEL AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS USING THE SAME | May 2003 | July 2006 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 10429109 | ARRANGEMENT FOR ILLUMINATING A SWITCH SURFACE FOR A TOUCH SENSOR SWITCH | May 2003 | May 2006 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 10419999 | INFORMATION TERMINAL AND INFORMATION TERMINAL CONTROL METHOD | April 2003 | January 2006 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10408564 | LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY CONTROL DEVICE AND METHOD OF PREPARING PATTERNS FOR THE SAME DEVICE | April 2003 | October 2005 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10397043 | DISPLAY DEVICE | March 2003 | March 2006 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10394032 | OUTPUT CIRCUIT FOR GRAY SCALE CONTROL, TESTING APPARATUS THEREOF, AND METHOD FOR TESTING OUTPUT CIRCUIT FOR GRAY SCALE CONTROL | March 2003 | January 2006 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 10213392 | RUGGEDIZED INSTRUMENTED FIREFIGHTER'S SELF CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS | August 2002 | March 2006 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 09961176 | IMAGE DISPLAY SYSTEM AND IMAGE INFORMATION TRANSMISSION METHOD | September 2001 | May 2005 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner PATEL, NITIN.
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 PATEL, NITIN works in Art Unit 2628 and has examined 51 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 39.2%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.
Examiner PATEL, NITIN's allowance rate of 39.2% places them in the 8% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by PATEL, NITIN receive 1.92 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 43% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by PATEL, NITIN is 34 months. This places the examiner in the 44% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -44.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by PATEL, NITIN. This interview benefit is in the 1% 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, 2.9% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 2% 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 10.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 11% 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 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 2.0% of allowed cases (in the 74% percentile). This examiner makes examiner's amendments more often than average to place applications in condition for allowance (MPEP § 1302.04).
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 26% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may 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.