USPTO Examiner PATEL SHREYANS A - Art Unit 2659

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18619684Contrastive Siamese Network for Semi-supervised Speech RecognitionMarch 2024February 2025Allow1110NoNo
17957691Enabling and Disabling Microphones and Voice AssistantsSeptember 2022February 2025Allow2800NoNo
17820822SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND DEVICES FOR STAGED WAKEUP WORD DETECTIONAugust 2022February 2025Allow3010NoNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner PATEL, SHREYANS A - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner PATEL, SHREYANS A works in Art Unit 2659 and has examined 2 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 100.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 30 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner PATEL, SHREYANS A's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 98% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by PATEL, SHREYANS A receive 0.50 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 4% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by PATEL, SHREYANS A is 30 months. This places the examiner in the 41% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

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:

    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.