Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17055008 | VOICE DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD, WIRELESS EARPHONE AND TWS EARPHONE | November 2020 | October 2022 | Abandon | 23 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16852793 | SPEECH DATA AUGMENTATION | April 2020 | September 2022 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16830364 | GENERATING METHOD, LEARNING METHOD, GENERATING APPARATUS, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM FOR STORING GENERATING PROGRAM | March 2020 | August 2022 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16799698 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATED CONVERSATIONS WITH A TRANSACTIONAL ASSISTANT | February 2020 | September 2022 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16742196 | PLUSH TOY AUDIO CONTROLLER | January 2020 | December 2021 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16604428 | ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR GENERATING NAMED ENTITY TABLE | October 2019 | October 2022 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16584499 | PINNING ARTIFACTS FOR EXPANSION OF SEARCH KEYS AND SEARCH SPACES IN A NATURAL LANGUAGE UNDERSTANDING (NLU) FRAMEWORK | September 2019 | October 2022 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16558459 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR TRAINING NEURAL MACHINE TRANSLATION MODEL FOR IMPROVED TRANSLATION PERFORMANCE | September 2019 | September 2022 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16442454 | GENERATION OF EDITED TRANSCRIPTION FOR SPEECH AUDIO | June 2019 | September 2021 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16370661 | TOXIC CONTENT DETECTION WITH INTERPRETABILITY FEATURE | March 2019 | June 2021 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15280984 | CONVERSATIONAL INTERACTIONS USING SUPERBOTS | September 2016 | November 2019 | Abandon | 37 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15265430 | REMOTE SPEECH RECOGNITION AT A VEHICLE | September 2016 | October 2019 | Abandon | 38 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 15219868 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | July 2016 | August 2019 | Abandon | 36 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15058636 | Voice Recognition Accuracy in High Noise Conditions | March 2016 | August 2019 | Abandon | 42 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 14885849 | Normalized, User Adjustable, Stochastic, Lightweight, Media Environment | October 2015 | January 2020 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14861747 | UNIVERSAL TRANSLATION | September 2015 | March 2017 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14857681 | RATE CONVERTOR | September 2015 | May 2017 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14263552 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MAN-MACHINE CONVERSATION | April 2014 | June 2017 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14134941 | VOICE INTERACTION APPLICATION SELECTION | December 2013 | April 2017 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14090866 | VOICE ENTRY VIN METHOD AND APPARATUS | November 2013 | October 2015 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14008752 | SPEECH RECOGNITION RESULT SHAPING APPARATUS, SPEECH RECOGNITION RESULT SHAPING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM | September 2013 | February 2016 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14010341 | Low Power Mechanism for Keyword Based Hands-Free Wake Up in Always ON-Domain | August 2013 | November 2015 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13909083 | CAPTURE SERVICES THROUGH COMMUNICATION CHANNELS | June 2013 | November 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13564153 | Automatically Changing a Language for Electronic Messages | August 2012 | February 2015 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13489990 | METHOD, SYSTEM AND PROCESSOR-READABLE MEDIA FOR AUTOMATICALLY VOCALIZING USER PRE-SELECTED SPORTING EVENT SCORES | June 2012 | December 2013 | Abandon | 18 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13511880 | CONCEALING AUDIO INTERRUPTIONS | May 2012 | April 2018 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13382573 | PROCESS FOR PRODUCING MICROFIBRILLATED CELLULOSE | March 2012 | May 2014 | Allow | 28 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 13316730 | AUTOMATIC DIALOG REPLACEMENT BY REAL-TIME ANALYTIC PROCESSING | December 2011 | November 2014 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13302480 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PREPROCESSING SPEECH SIGNALS | November 2011 | February 2015 | Abandon | 39 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13046691 | Methods and Systems for Word Tone Implementation | March 2011 | June 2013 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13001886 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR IDENTIFYING SPEECH SOUNDS USING MULTI-DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS | March 2011 | November 2013 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12744807 | SPEECH SYNTHESIS DEVICE, SPEECH SYNTHESIS METHOD, AND SPEECH SYNTHESIS PROGRAM | May 2010 | December 2013 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12779880 | Method for Generating Voice Signal in E-Books and an E-Book Reader | May 2010 | January 2013 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12373633 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR REDUCING RECEPTION OF UNWANTED MESSAGES | December 2009 | December 2012 | Abandon | 47 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12574234 | METHOD FOR GENERATING TEXT IN A HANDHELD ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND A HANDHELD ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCORPORATING THE SAME | October 2009 | August 2017 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11948480 | SELECTIVE VEHICLE COMPONENT CONTROL | November 2007 | July 2013 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11861216 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING REDUNDANCY MANAGEMENT | September 2007 | June 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11766780 | Automatic Decision Support | June 2007 | May 2013 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11697112 | CATEGORIZATION OF DOCUMENTS USING PART-OF-SPEECH SMOOTHING | April 2007 | February 2013 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11608935 | SOLUTION FOR SHARING SPEECH PROCESSING RESOURCES IN A MULTITASKING ENVIRONMENT | December 2006 | November 2012 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10312928 | METHOD OF MANAGING COMMUNICATION NETWORK, AND COMMUNICATION DEVICE | December 2002 | September 2006 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10281222 | GRAPHICAL INDICATION OF A PROXIMATELY LOCATED DEVICE | October 2002 | January 2007 | Allow | 50 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner DESIR, PIERRE LOUIS.
With a 16.7% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is below the USPTO average, indicating that appeals face more challenges here than typical.
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, 14.3% 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.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner DESIR, PIERRE LOUIS works in Art Unit 2659 and has examined 42 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 16.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 36 months.
Examiner DESIR, PIERRE LOUIS's allowance rate of 16.7% places them in the 2% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by DESIR, PIERRE LOUIS receive 2.24 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 58% 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 DESIR, PIERRE LOUIS is 36 months. This places the examiner in the 36% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +14.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by DESIR, PIERRE LOUIS. This interview benefit is in the 52% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 12.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 9% 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 13.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 15% 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 request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 11% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 14.3% of appeals filed. This is in the 2% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.
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 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 28% 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.