Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18767169 | FLUORESCENCE-BASED DETECTION OF PROBLEMATIC CELLULAR ENTITIES | July 2024 | March 2025 | Allow | 8 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18721224 | NETWORK ARCHITECTURE FOR 3D IMAGE PROCESSING | June 2024 | January 2025 | Allow | 7 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18641042 | APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR ATTRIBUTE DETECTION IN ANATOMY DATA | April 2024 | March 2025 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18422830 | APPARATUSES, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION OF VEHICLE OPERATION MODE DATA | January 2024 | February 2025 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18520048 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SEGMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT OF A SKIN ABNORMALITY | November 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18244516 | Matching Local Image Feature Descriptors in Image Analysis | September 2023 | February 2025 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18201927 | MACHINE LEARNING MODEL TRAINING | May 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 25 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18316340 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TEMPLATE-BASED AUTOMATIC DETECTION OF ANATOMICAL STRUCTURES | May 2023 | February 2025 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18072337 | IMAGE CLASSIFICATION METHOD AND APPARATUS, DEVICE, STORAGE MEDIUM, AND PROGRAM PRODUCT | November 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 27 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18054636 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR IDENTIFYING AND REDUCING GENDER BIAS AMPLIFICATION | November 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 28 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17976541 | USING INTRINSIC MULTIMODAL FEATURES OF IMAGE FOR DOMAIN GENERALIZED | October 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 28 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17917811 | HUMAN DETECTION SYSTEM, HUMAN DETECTION METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | October 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 28 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17903142 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ESTIMATING GESTURE OF USER FROM TWO-DIMENSIONAL IMAGE, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM | September 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17816957 | INTERACTIVE VOICE RESPONSE SYSTEMS HAVING IMAGE ANALYSIS | August 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17814571 | SURVEYING DATA PROCESSING APPARATUS, SURVEYING DATA PROCESSING METHOD, AND SURVEYING DATA PROCESSING PROGRAM | July 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17780509 | BODY FAT PREDICTION AND BODY MODELING USING MOBILE DEVICE | May 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17723615 | FACE RECOGNITION AND IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM USING IOT AND DEEP LEARNING APPROACH | April 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17712979 | CREATING A VASCULAR TREE MODEL | April 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17706513 | METHOD FOR PROCESSING POINT CLOUD DATA, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM | March 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17634567 | MEDICAL IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE AND MEDICAL OBSERVATION SYSTEM | February 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17625099 | SIGNAL PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHOD USING LOCAL LENGTH SCALES FOR DEBLURRING | January 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17234265 | AUTOMATIC PROFILE PICTURE UPDATES | April 2021 | January 2024 | Allow | 33 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16886761 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR AUTOMATED REALISTIC VIDEO IMAGE MODIFICATION | May 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 59 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15190112 | COLOR GAMUT MAPPING BASED ON THE MAPPING OF CUSP COLORS OBTAINED THROUGH SIMPLIFIED CUSP LINES | June 2016 | January 2018 | Abandon | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15062112 | Image quality objective evaluation method based on manifold feature similarity | March 2016 | January 2018 | Abandon | 23 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14692692 | METHOD FOR OBFUSCATING IMAGES OR VIDEO TO PREVENT DIGITAL RECORDING OR CAPTURE WHILE REMAINING VISIBLE TO HUMANS | April 2015 | October 2017 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14507777 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENHANCEMENT OF RETINAL IMAGES | October 2014 | October 2016 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14500929 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATED DETECTION OF REGIONS OF INTEREST IN RETINAL IMAGES | September 2014 | October 2016 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12988372 | PROCESS AND APPARATUS FOR LUNG NODULE SEGMENTATION IN A CHEST RADIOGRAPH | October 2010 | March 2013 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12664847 | IMAGE SAMPLING IN STOCHASTIC MODEL-BASED COMPUTER VISION | April 2010 | April 2013 | Abandon | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12619766 | RESTORATION METHOD FOR BLURRED IMAGES USING BI-LEVEL REGIONS | November 2009 | January 2013 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11994238 | Biometric Authentication Apparatus | July 2009 | April 2013 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 12490924 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR RECOGNIZING CHARACTER IN CHARACTER RECOGNIZING APPARATUS | June 2009 | August 2012 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12488479 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR FIR FILTERING USING SPACE-VARYING ROTATION | June 2009 | August 2012 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12483103 | METHOD FOR GEOTAGGING OF PICTURES AND APPARATUS THEREOF | June 2009 | August 2012 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12463435 | IMAGE COMPRESSION METHOD AND RELATED APPARATUS | May 2009 | November 2012 | Abandon | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12305431 | METHOD, A SYSTEM AND A COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR DETERMINING A THRESHOLD IN AN IMAGE COMPRISING IMAGE VALUES | December 2008 | November 2012 | Abandon | 47 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12155844 | Block noise reducer | June 2008 | January 2013 | Abandon | 55 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12149608 | Dynamic optimization of a biometric sensor | May 2008 | March 2013 | Abandon | 58 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 12101139 | IMAGE DETECTING WITH AUTOMATED SENSING OF AN OBJECT OR CHARACTERISTIC OF THAT OBJECT | April 2008 | March 2013 | Abandon | 59 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 12081070 | ANONYMOUS ASSOCIATION SYSTEM UTILIZING BIOMETRICS | April 2008 | July 2012 | Allow | 51 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 11984685 | Method, medium, and system classifying images based on image properties | November 2007 | January 2013 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11979759 | Image processing method | November 2007 | November 2012 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11866784 | DROPLET DETECTION SYSTEM | October 2007 | December 2012 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11822970 | WAFER DEFECT INSPECTION USING EXTRACTED AND ALIGNED FEATURE PATTERN | July 2007 | December 2012 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 11818328 | System for and method of performing a medical evaluation | June 2007 | December 2012 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 11694829 | SOURCE AUTHENTICATION AND USAGE TRACKING OF VIDEO | March 2007 | March 2013 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11659665 | Face Identification Apparatus and Face Identification Method | February 2007 | December 2012 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11026004 | METHOD FOR FAST, ROBUST, MULTI-DIMENSIONAL PATTERN RECOGNITION | December 2004 | April 2010 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KOZIOL, STEPHEN R.
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 KOZIOL, STEPHEN R works in Art Unit 2665 and has examined 45 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 33.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 38 months.
Examiner KOZIOL, STEPHEN R's allowance rate of 33.3% 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 KOZIOL, STEPHEN R receive 1.49 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 36% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by KOZIOL, STEPHEN R is 38 months. This places the examiner in the 12% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +45.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KOZIOL, STEPHEN R. This interview benefit is in the 92% 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, 26.9% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 35% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
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 54% 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 file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 83% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 4.4% of allowed cases (in the 88% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 25% 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.