Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18839172 | Locating a Moving Acoustic Source | August 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 19 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18621986 | Automated Conversation Content Items from Natural Language | March 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 15 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18436010 | BINARUAL RENDERING | February 2024 | September 2025 | Allow | 19 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18289185 | CONVERSION MODEL LEARNING APPARATUS, CONVERSION MODEL GENERATION APPARATUS, CONVERSION APPARATUS, CONVERSION METHOD AND PROGRAM | November 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18380847 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR FAIR SPEECH EMOTION RECOGNITION | October 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18452084 | Signal-adaptive Remixing of Separated Audio Sources | August 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18233295 | TEXT TO AUDIO CONVERSION WITH DISENTANGLED STYLE CONDITIONING | August 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18344747 | PROCESSING NATURAL LANGUAGE QUERIES WITH API CALLS AND API EXECUTIONS | June 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18248808 | GENERATIVE NEURAL NETWORK MODEL FOR PROCESSING AUDIO SAMPLES IN A FILTER-BANK DOMAIN | April 2023 | September 2025 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18067377 | GAZE BASED DEVICE CONTROL | December 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17906322 | UPDATING CONSTRAINTS FOR COMPUTERIZED ASSISTANT ACTIONS | September 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17898894 | ADAPTIVE ECHO CANCELLATION | August 2022 | September 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17882461 | RECORDING MEETING AUDIO VIA MULTIPLE INDIVIDUAL SMARTPHONES | August 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17773528 | INTELLIGENT VOICE RECOGNITION METHOD AND APPARATUS | April 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17765809 | METHOD FOR DISPLAYING ENTITY-ASSOCIATED INFORMATION BASED ON ELECTRONIC BOOK AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE | March 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17579131 | MITIGATING FALSE POSITIVES AND/OR FALSE NEGATIVES IN HOT WORD FREE ADAPTATION OF AUTOMATED ASSISTANT | January 2022 | September 2025 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17644767 | Systems and Methods for Speech Validation | December 2021 | June 2025 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17602281 | DIALOG ACTION ESTIMATION DEVICE, DIALOG ACTION ESTIMATION METHOD, DIALOG ACTION ESTIMATION MODEL LEARNING DEVICE, AND PROGRAM | October 2021 | June 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17389836 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING A DYNAMIC LIST OF HINT WORDS FOR AUTOMATED SPEECH RECOGNITION | July 2021 | February 2025 | Allow | 43 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12434740 | MULTIPLE CHANNEL SOUND SYSTEM USING MULTI-SPEAKER ARRAYS | May 2009 | September 2012 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12132624 | LOUDSPEAKER ARRAY DESIGN | June 2008 | September 2012 | Allow | 52 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12054935 | METHOD FOR ASSIGNING A PLURALITY OF AUDIO CHANNELS TO A PLURALITY OF SPEAKERS, CORRESPONDING COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT, STORAGE MEANS AND MANAGER NODE | March 2008 | July 2012 | Allow | 52 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11780618 | DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER SYSTEM AND AUTOMATIC SET-UP METHOD THEREOF | July 2007 | July 2012 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11518931 | METHOD AND APPARATUS TO GENERATE SPATIAL SOUND | September 2006 | August 2012 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11388496 | AUDIO SYSTEM WITH PARENTAL MAXIMUM VOLUME CONTROL | March 2006 | September 2012 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner PHAN, HAI.
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.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner PHAN, HAI works in Art Unit 2654 and has examined 9 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 77.8%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 52 months.
Examiner PHAN, HAI's allowance rate of 77.8% places them in the 45% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by PHAN, HAI receive 2.67 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 78% 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.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by PHAN, HAI is 52 months. This places the examiner in the 3% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +28.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by PHAN, HAI. This interview benefit is in the 76% 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.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 33.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 72% 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.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 16.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 19% 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.
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's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 21% 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 27% 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.