USPTO Examiner CHUNG DANIEL WONSUK - Art Unit 2659

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18630772OUT-OF-DOMAIN DATA AUGMENTATION FOR NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSINGApril 2024January 2025Allow900NoNo
18596327SYSTEM, METHOD AND PROGRAMMED PRODUCT FOR UNIQUELY IDENTIFYING PARTICIPANTS IN A RECORDED STREAMING TELECONFERENCEMarch 2024October 2024Allow700NoNo
17820220ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DEVICE CONFIGURED TO GENERATE A MASK VALUEAugust 2022January 2025Allow2910NoNo
17842986SPEECH SYNTHESIS WITH FOREIGN FRAGMENTSJune 2022May 2025Allow3520YesYes
17662922STEP-UP AUTHENTICATION FOR CONVERSATIONAL INTERFACES USING SPOKEN PASSPHRASESMay 2022February 2024Allow2120YesNo
17738541CONTEXT SHARING BETWEEN PHYSICAL AND DIGITAL WORLDSMay 2022March 2025Abandon3420YesNo
17734471PROGRESSIVE CONTRASTIVE LEARNING FRAMEWORK FOR SELF-SUPERVISED SPEAKER VERIFICATIONMay 2022February 2025Allow3410YesNo
17712301RESPONSE DETERMINING DEVICE AND CONTROLLING METHOD OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE THEREFORApril 2022February 2025Allow3520YesNo
17764291NEURAL NETWORK-BASED SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS, NEURAL NETWORK-BASED SIGNAL PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUMMarch 2022February 2025Allow3510YesNo
17651208SYSTEM, METHOD AND PROGRAMMED PRODUCT FOR UNIQUELY IDENTIFYING PARTICIPANTS IN A RECORDED STREAMING TELECONFERENCEFebruary 2022January 2024Allow2310YesNo
17665939METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR NOISE REDUCTION OF FULL-BAND SIGNALFebruary 2022June 2024Abandon2820NoNo
17647615DYNAMICALLY GENERATING DOCUMENTS USING NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING AND DYNAMIC USER INTERFACEJanuary 2022April 2025Allow3920YesNo
17647499APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR COMPOSITIONAL SPOKEN LANGUAGE UNDERSTANDINGJanuary 2022September 2024Allow3210YesNo
17566966SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SPEECH TO TEXT CONVERSIONDecember 2021April 2025Allow3930YesNo
17644377Reducing Streaming ASR Model Delay With Self AlignmentDecember 2021April 2024Allow2810NoNo
17643684Phonemes And Graphemes for Neural Text-to-SpeechDecember 2021February 2024Allow2710NoNo
17456124GENERATION AND DELIVERY OF TEXT-BASED CONTENT USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) BASED TECHNIQUESNovember 2021December 2023Abandon2510NoNo
17611741AUDIO PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTIVE SYSTEMNovember 2021May 2025Abandon4240NoNo
17517206RICH AND INTERACTIVE MECHANISM FOR PROVIDING WORD INFORMATIONNovember 2021June 2024Abandon3110NoNo
17516045ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PERFORMING VOICE RECOGNITION THEREOFNovember 2021December 2024Allow3740YesNo
17452743OUT-OF-DOMAIN DATA AUGMENTATION FOR NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSINGOctober 2021February 2024Allow2810YesNo
17452510ELECTRONIC APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING USER INTERFACE ELEMENTS BY VOICEOctober 2021November 2024Allow3740YesNo
17508417BRIDGING SEMANTICS BETWEEN WORDS AND DEFINITIONS VIA ALIGNING WORD SENSE INVENTORIESOctober 2021December 2024Allow3830NoNo
17502933PERSONALIZED TEXT PROOFING USING DISTRIBUTED SERVICESOctober 2021October 2024Allow3620YesNo
17451033METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR RECOGNIZING SPEECH, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUMOctober 2021May 2024Abandon3110NoNo
17450778ELECTRONIC APPARATUS AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING THE SAMEOctober 2021November 2024Abandon3730NoNo
17601866INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD TO CONTROL BEHAVIOR OF AN AGENTOctober 2021December 2024Allow3830NoNo
17449878ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR PROCESSING USER UTTERANCE AND METHOD FOR OPERATING THEREOFOctober 2021December 2024Abandon3830NoNo
17486910EQUIPMENT CONTROL DEVICE AND EQUIPMENT CONTROL METHODSeptember 2021November 2024Abandon3830YesNo
17462502VOICE PROCESSING SYSTEM, METHOD AND RECORDING MEDIUM FOR DISPLAYING VOICE COMMANDSAugust 2021October 2024Abandon3740NoNo
17462480SYSTEM AND CONTROL METHOD OF DISPLAY APPARATUS UTILIZING VOICE ASSISTANTAugust 2021September 2024Abandon3740NoNo
17462776METHOD OF TRAINING A SPEECH RECOGNITION MODEL OF AN EXTENDED LANGUAGE BY SPEECH IN A SOURCE LANGUAGEAugust 2021April 2024Abandon3220NoNo
17435002GENERATION APPARATUS, GENERATION METHOD AND PROGRAMAugust 2021September 2024Allow3730NoNo
17426764ENTITY TYPE IDENTIFICATION FOR NAMED ENTITY RECOGNITION SYSTEMSJuly 2021September 2024Allow3830NoNo
17344341DIALOGUE DEVICE, DIALOGUE METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM RECORDING DIALOGUE PROGRAMJune 2021March 2024Abandon3310NoNo
17339933DATA PROCESSING METHOD AND PRONOUN RESOLUTION NEURAL NETWORK TRAINING METHODJune 2021January 2024Allow3110YesNo
17322180INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM RECORDING INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAMMay 2021February 2024Abandon3310NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CHUNG, DANIEL WONSUK.

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
96.9%
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 CHUNG, DANIEL WONSUK - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner CHUNG, DANIEL WONSUK works in Art Unit 2659 and has examined 35 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 60.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 35 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner CHUNG, DANIEL WONSUK's allowance rate of 60.0% places them in the 13% 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 CHUNG, DANIEL WONSUK receive 2.11 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 71% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by CHUNG, DANIEL WONSUK is 35 months. This places the examiner in the 20% 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 +50.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CHUNG, DANIEL WONSUK. This interview benefit is in the 94% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 30.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 52% 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 12.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 7% 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 90% 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 25% 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:

  • 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.
  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.
  • 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.