USPTO Examiner NADKARNI SARVESH J - Art Unit 2629

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18961563TOUCH SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY DEVICENovember 2024January 2026Allow1410NoNo
18820741Dynamic Display Timing Controller for Radio Frequency Interference MitigationAugust 2024January 2026Allow1730YesNo
18741174Translating Interactions on a Two-Dimensional Interface to an Artificial Reality ExperienceJune 2024March 2026Abandon2120YesNo
18642798ELECTRONIC DEVICEApril 2024February 2026Allow2210NoNo
18586820SCAN SIGNAL DRIVER CIRCUIT, DISPLAY PANEL, DISPLAY DEVICE, AND DRIVING METHODFebruary 2024January 2026Allow2311NoNo
15895660FILTERING STYLUS STROKESFebruary 2018March 2018Allow100NoNo
15563235DISTINGUISHING NON-INPUT CONTACTSeptember 2017June 2020Allow3340YesYes
15673693OPERATION METHOD OF DISPLAY DEVICEAugust 2017January 2020Allow3011NoNo
15604352ZERO-DIMENSIONAL BASELINE MANAGEMENTMay 2017September 2019Allow2830YesNo
15355353HANDHELD INTERFACE DEVICE HAVING A PLURALITY OF ELECTROSTATIC FRICTION (ESF) ELECTRODESNovember 2016September 2019Allow3430NoNo
15054674DISPLAY APPARATUS AND METHODFebruary 2016May 2019Allow3921YesNo
14924917PROJECTION SYSTEM WITH ADDITIONAL SERIES CONNECTED LIGHT VALVE FOR ENHANCED CONTRASTOctober 2015May 2017Allow1820NoNo
14919434ELECTRO-OPTICAL DEVICE, METHOD OF CONTROLLING ELECTRO-OPTICAL DEVICE, AND ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTOctober 2015June 2018Allow3210NoNo
14707414Display Correction Circuit, Display Correction System, and Display DeviceMay 2015August 2019Allow5260NoNo
14440902LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY DEVICEMay 2015June 2017Allow2520YesNo
14570727FILTERING STYLUS STROKESDecember 2014October 2017Allow3411NoNo
14272882Active Stylus with Force SensorMay 2014March 2016Allow2210YesNo
14117959SCANNING SIGNAL LINE DRIVE CIRCUIT, DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING THE SAME, AND DRIVING METHOD FOR SCANNING SIGNAL LINENovember 2013March 2016Allow2810NoNo
14117671LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY DEVICE, METHOD OF DRIVING LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY DEVICE, AND TELEVISION RECEIVERNovember 2013July 2016Allow3210NoNo
13971063MEANS FOR DYNAMICALLY REGULATING THE TIME-OUT CHARACTERISTICS OF A DISPLAY OF AN ELECTRONIC DEVICEAugust 2013December 2015Allow2811YesNo
13744550LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY WITH PHOTO-LUMINESCENT MATERIAL LAYERJanuary 2013March 2016Allow3830YesNo
13745260MOBILE TERMINAL AND METHOD FOR FABRICATING THE SAMEJanuary 2013September 2015Allow3220YesNo
13658642ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAY AND METHOD OF DRIVING THEREOFOctober 2012June 2015Allow3130NoNo
13483666DISPLAY DEVICE AND DRIVING METHOD THEREOFMay 2012July 2015Allow3820NoNo
13378233DISPLAY DRIVING CIRCUIT, DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICEDecember 2011October 2014Allow3411NoNo
13378360COLOR SPACE MATCHING OF VIDEO SIGNALSDecember 2011August 2014Allow3210NoNo
13378270LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY DEVICE AND DRIVING METHOD THEREOFDecember 2011October 2014Allow3410NoNo
13047292APPARATUS AND A METHOD FOR GESTURE RECOGNITIONMarch 2011July 2015Allow5231NoNo
13023995DISPLAY CONTROL DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING DISPLAY ON TOUCH PANEL, AND STORAGE MEDIUMFebruary 2011December 2013Allow3511NoNo
13024241METHOD FOR ASSISTING USER INPUT TO A DEVICEFebruary 2011September 2013Allow3110NoNo
13024039LIQUID CRYSTAL PANEL DRIVING METHOD, AND SOURCE DRIVER AND LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY APPARATUS USING THE METHODFebruary 2011June 2014Allow4011NoNo
12682620BACKLIGHT AND LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY UNIT USING SAMEApril 2010February 2014Allow4640NoNo
12682235Interactive Display System With Collaborative Gesture DetectionApril 2010December 2015Allow6020NoYes
12682089CAPACITY LOAD DRIVE DEVICE AND LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY DEVICE USING THE SAMEApril 2010September 2014Allow5330NoNo
12669100PLASMA DISPLAY PANEL AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAMEJanuary 2010September 2012Abandon3210NoNo
12687401INPUT APPARATUS, CONTROL APPARATUS, CONTROL SYSTEM, AND CONTROL METHODJanuary 2010August 2013Allow4310YesNo
12686690POLARIZER CAPACITIVE TOUCH SCREENJanuary 2010September 2012Abandon3210NoNo
12686885PIXEL AND ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICE USING THE SAMEJanuary 2010July 2013Allow4310NoNo
12495984SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICEJuly 2009January 2014Allow5530NoNo
12495217METHOD FOR OPERATING MOUSE WHEEL ACCORDING TO POSITION OF CURSOR POINTERJune 2009May 2012Abandon3410NoNo
12495011Optical Touch Panel Having SMT Components As Optical GatesJune 2009September 2013Allow5140YesNo
12494791DISPLAY UNIT WITH LUMINANCE AND CHROMATICITY CORRECTION USING COMPRESSED CORRECTION MATRIXJune 2009November 2013Allow5340NoNo
12427433SENSING CIRCUIT, DISPLAY DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUSApril 2009March 2014Allow5940YesNo
12309671DISPLAY CONTROLLER, DISPLAY DEVICE, DISPLAY SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING DISPLAY DEVICEJanuary 2009November 2013Allow5810YesNo
12260827DISPLAY DEVICE, DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENTOctober 2008August 2011Allow3300NoNo
12260294PLSMA DISPLAY APPARATUSOctober 2008March 2012Abandon4010NoNo
12260141Automatic Color Adjustment Method and An Automatic Color Adjustment DeviceOctober 2008January 2012Abandon3810NoNo
12260103ELECTROLUMINESCENT DISPLAY WITH EFFICIENCY COMPENSATIONOctober 2008May 2012Allow4320NoNo
12260656Display Device Provided With Optical Input FunctionOctober 2008July 2012Abandon4520NoNo
12083778Plasma Display Panel and Plasma Display DeviceOctober 2008January 2012Abandon4510NoNo
12084410Virtual Interface SystemSeptember 2008April 2012Abandon4720NoNo
12188577DISPLAY APPARATUS, PIXEL STRUCTURE AND DRIVING METHOD THEREOFAugust 2008March 2012Allow4310NoNo
12188221DATA ACCESS METHOD FOR A TIMING CONTROLLER OF A FLAT PANEL DISPLAY AND RELATED DEVICEAugust 2008June 2012Allow4720NoNo
12188237GRAPHIC USER INTERFACE DEVICE AND METHOD OF DISPLAYING GRAPHIC OBJECTSAugust 2008March 2016Allow6090YesYes
12187490PLASMA DISPLAY PANELAugust 2008January 2012Abandon4210NoNo
12187774MATRIX ARRAY DRIVE DEVICE, DISPLAY AND IMAGE SENSORAugust 2008February 2012Allow4320NoNo
12187885Wireless Mouse with Companion Wireless Mouse PadAugust 2008November 2011Abandon4001NoNo
12083479High Efficiency Display Utilizing Simultaneous Color Intelligent Backlighting and Luminescence Controlling ShuttersApril 2008March 2012Abandon4720NoNo
12083452Light Valve Display Using Low Resolution Programmable Color BacklightingApril 2008March 2012Abandon4720NoNo
12083441Light Valve Display Using Low Resolution Programmable Color BacklightingApril 2008January 2012Abandon4520NoNo
12083444Display Utilizing Simultaneous Color Intelligent Backlighting and luminescence Controlling ShuttersApril 2008February 2012Abandon4620NoNo
12083449High Efficiency Display Utilizing Simultaneous Color Intelligent Backlighting and Luminescence Controllling ShuttersApril 2008March 2012Abandon4720NoNo
10547250METHOD OF CONTROLLING AN ELECTROCHROMIC MATRIX DISPLAY AND ELECTROCHROMIC DISPLAYSeptember 2006July 2008Allow3410NoNo
11464237SYSTEM FOR DISPLAYING IMAGESAugust 2006June 2007Allow1000YesNo
10547335Data input device, data input method, data input program, and computer-readable recording medium containing data input programSeptember 2005September 2008Abandon3620NoNo
10546048Guard-equipped image display deviceAugust 2005April 2008Abandon3210NoNo
10545062Electrophoretic display panelAugust 2005February 2008Abandon3010NoNo
11034886Keyboard and key sealJanuary 2005May 2008Abandon4010NoNo
11035052Display apparatus and display systemJanuary 2005May 2008Abandon4010NoNo
11035181Viewing screen color limiting device and methodJanuary 2005April 2008Abandon3910NoNo
10968993Image display apparatusOctober 2004March 2008Abandon4110YesNo
10931350Image displaying apparatusSeptember 2004October 2007Abandon3820YesNo
10931312FUZZY LOGIC BASED LCD OVERDRIVE CONTROL METHODAugust 2004October 2007Allow3820NoNo
10823223Horizontal scrolling mouseApril 2004December 2007Abandon4410NoNo
10819274DRIVING CIRCUIT FOR COLOR IMAGE DISPLAY AND DISPLAY DEVICE PROVIDED WITH THE SAMEApril 2004January 2008Allow4511NoNo
10810621METHOD FOR LUMINANCE COMPENSATION OF LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY AND ITS DEVICEMarch 2004September 2007Allow4110NoNo
10809800Display processorMarch 2004December 2007Abandon4410YesNo
10810078Circuit element, signal processing circuit, control device, display device, method of driving display device, method of driving circuit element, and method of driving control deviceMarch 2004August 2008Abandon5312NoNo
10808369Multiline addressing drive method and apparatus for passive matrix liquid crystal, and a liquid crystal panelMarch 2004November 2007Abandon4410YesNo
10763429Membrane antenna assembly for a wireless deviceJanuary 2004December 2007Abandon4710NoNo
10756756Current source circuit, a signal line driver circuit and a driving method thereof and a light emitting deviceJanuary 2004October 2013Allow6092YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner NADKARNI, SARVESH J.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
1
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
8.5%
Lower than average

What This Means

With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
3
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(33.3%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(66.7%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
52.7%
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, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.

Strategic Recommendations

Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.

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

Examiner NADKARNI, SARVESH J - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner NADKARNI, SARVESH J works in Art Unit 2629 and has examined 76 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 63.2%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 40 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner NADKARNI, SARVESH J's allowance rate of 63.2% places them in the 23% 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 NADKARNI, SARVESH J receive 1.86 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by NADKARNI, SARVESH J is 40 months. This places the examiner in the 24% 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 +21.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by NADKARNI, SARVESH J. This interview benefit is in the 65% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 29.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 55% 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 27.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 39% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 95% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 75.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 64% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 66.7% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows above-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. The mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) provides an opportunity for reconsideration.

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 1.3% of allowed cases (in the 70% 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 25% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may 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.
  • Request pre-appeal conferences: PACs are highly effective with this examiner. Before filing a full appeal brief, request a PAC to potentially resolve issues without full PTAB review.
  • 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.