Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18745730 | Automated Mapping Information Generation From Analysis Of Building Photos | June 2024 | July 2025 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18590975 | FACIAL EXPRESSION-BASED DETECTION METHOD FOR DEEPFAKE BY GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) | February 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 23 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18395717 | LEARNING METHOD, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, LEARNING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, LEARNING PROGRAM, AND IMAGE PROCESSING PROGRAM | December 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 25 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18378787 | OUTPUT DEVICE | October 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18231867 | BEHAVIOR IMAGE SENSOR SYSTEM | August 2023 | February 2026 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18262849 | PREDICTING SCATTERED SIGNAL OF X-RAY, AND CORRECTING SCATTERED BEAM | July 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18222214 | CARELESS DRIVING DETERMINATION APPARATUS AND CARELESS DRIVING DETERMINATION METHOD | July 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18267606 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR FLEXIBLE DENOISING OF IMAGES USING DISENTANGLED FEATURE REPRESENTATION FIELD | June 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18252303 | METHOD FOR COMPRESSING MODEL DATA AND COMPUTER SYSTEM | May 2023 | March 2026 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18304698 | MULTI-RESOLUTION TOP-DOWN SEGMENTATION | April 2023 | July 2025 | Allow | 27 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18146965 | CORONARY ARTERY SEGMENTATION METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | December 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18085796 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR THE ACCURATE TRACKING OF ORBITAL OBJECTS | December 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 39 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17926762 | Computer Software Module Arrangement, a Circuitry Arrangement, an Arrangement and a Method for Improved Image Processing | November 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17917937 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR 3D IMAGE SCANNING | October 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17951684 | IMAGE ANALYSIS SYSTEM, IMAGE ANALYSIS METHOD, AND PROGRAM | September 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17883086 | POST PROCESSING SYSTEM AND POST PROCESSING METHOD FOR RECONSTRUCTED IMAGES AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | August 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 42 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17806097 | OPEN VOCABULARY INSTANCE SEGMENTATION WITH NOISE ESTIMATION AND ROBUST STUDENT | June 2022 | November 2025 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17775036 | TARGETED APPLICATION OF DEEP LEARNING TO AUTOMATED VISUAL INSPECTION EQUIPMENT | May 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17650437 | OPEN VOCABULARY INSTANCE SEGMENTATION | February 2022 | September 2025 | Allow | 43 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17536400 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FRACTAL-BASED VISUAL SEARCHING | November 2021 | August 2025 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17501506 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOFOCUS AND AUTOMATED CELL COUNT USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | October 2021 | September 2025 | Allow | 47 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17475031 | DEPTH ESTIMATION BASED ON DATA FUSION OF IMAGE SENSOR AND DEPTH SENSOR FRAMES | September 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 49 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17462886 | Method for Human Characteristic and Object Characteristic Identification for Retail Loss Prevention at the Point of Sale | August 2021 | November 2025 | Abandon | 50 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17217282 | IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEM FOR PERFORMING IMAGE QUALITY TUNING AND METHOD OF PERFORMING IMAGE QUALITY TUNING | March 2021 | November 2025 | Abandon | 55 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17250787 | INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, TERMINAL DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, | March 2021 | December 2025 | Abandon | 57 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 17110610 | DATA STREAM ENABLED RETURN MAIL SERVICES | December 2020 | December 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SOHRABY, PARDIS.
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, 0.0% 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.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner SOHRABY, PARDIS works in Art Unit 2664 and has examined 7 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 57.1%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 50 months.
Examiner SOHRABY, PARDIS's allowance rate of 57.1% places them in the 18% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by SOHRABY, PARDIS receive 4.29 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 98% 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 SOHRABY, PARDIS is 50 months. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +41.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SOHRABY, PARDIS. This interview benefit is in the 88% 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, 7.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 3% 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 40.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 61% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.
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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 91% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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 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.