Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16786057 | DISENTANGLEMENT OF IMAGE ATTRIBUTES USING A NEURAL NETWORK | February 2020 | May 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16680732 | IMAGE STITCHING WITH ELECTRONIC ROLLING SHUTTER CORRECTION | November 2019 | October 2020 | Allow | 11 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16092875 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD FOR DETECTING POSITION OF OBJECT | October 2018 | July 2020 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15999767 | A METHOD OF STABILIZING A SEQUENCE OF IMAGES | August 2018 | January 2022 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16037264 | Knockout Autoencoder for Detecting Anomalies in Biomedical Images | July 2018 | August 2020 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15997700 | INFORMATION PROVIDING DEVICE AND INFORMATION PROVIDING METHOD | June 2018 | July 2020 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15754985 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SPECIFYING THE QUALITY OF THE RETINAL IMAGE OVER THE ENTIRE VISUAL FIELD | February 2018 | August 2020 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14731665 | PHASE INFORMATION ACQUISITION APPARATUS AND IMAGING SYSTEM | June 2015 | January 2017 | Abandon | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14659925 | IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS AND IMAGING SYSTEM | March 2015 | October 2016 | Abandon | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14151962 | Global Scene Descriptors for Matching Manhattan Scenes using Edge Maps Associated with Vanishing Points | January 2014 | January 2017 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14124820 | IMAGE DIAGNOSIS ASSISTING APPARATUS, AND METHOD | December 2013 | September 2016 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14098848 | VEHICLE HAVING GESTURE DETECTION SYSTEM AND METHOD | December 2013 | November 2016 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14092708 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND VIDEO OBJECT TRACKING METHOD THEREOF | November 2013 | December 2016 | Abandon | 37 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14011695 | QUANTIFYING CURVATURE OF BIOLOGICAL STRUCTURES FROM IMAGING DATA | August 2013 | July 2016 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13862415 | IMAGE DEBLURRING | April 2013 | September 2016 | Abandon | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13775654 | PICTURE DATA PROVISION SYSTEM | February 2013 | March 2014 | Abandon | 13 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13747849 | ADAPTIVE COMPRESSION ARTIFACTS REDUCTION METHOD | January 2013 | June 2013 | Abandon | 5 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13523538 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, PROGRAM, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | June 2012 | May 2013 | Abandon | 11 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner LE, VU works in Art Unit 2668 and has examined 18 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 38.9%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 30 months.
Examiner LE, VU's allowance rate of 38.9% places them in the 7% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by LE, VU receive 1.50 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 23% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by LE, VU is 30 months. This places the examiner in the 60% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +14.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LE, VU. 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, 18.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 21% 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 100.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 99% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 80.0% 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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 22% 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 29% 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.