USPTO Examiner FLORES LEON - Art Unit 2671

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17137282METHOD FOR TRAINING IMAGE CLASSIFYING MODEL, SERVER AND STORAGE MEDIUMDecember 2020December 2023Abandon3610NoNo
17256576METHOD FOR RATING A STATE OF A THREE-DIMENSIONAL TEST OBJECT, AND CORRESPONDING RATING SYSTEMDecember 2020December 2023Allow3510YesNo
17247773IMAGE BASED NOVELTY DETECTION OF MATERIAL SAMPLESDecember 2020July 2023Allow3010NoNo
17058743IMAGE-DATA-BASED CLASSIFICATION OF MEAT PRODUCTSNovember 2020October 2023Abandon3411NoNo
17059121MOTION CLASSIFICATION MODEL LEARNING APPARATUS, MOTION CLASSIFICATION APPARATUS, MOTION CLASSIFICATION MODEL LEARNING METHOD AND PROGRAMNovember 2020July 2023Allow3210YesNo
17058099MODEL LEARNING DEVICE, MODEL LEARNING METHOD, AND PROGRAMNovember 2020June 2023Allow3110NoNo
17048130NEURAL NETWORK IDENTIFICATION OF OBJECTS IN 360-DEGREE IMAGESOctober 2020July 2023Allow3300NoNo
17040478PROCESSING METHOD AND PROCESSING DEVICE USING SAMESeptember 2020July 2023Allow3300NoNo
17002114IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS AND STORAGE MEDIUMAugust 2020October 2023Abandon3710NoNo
16938773METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PREDICTING BRAIN DISEASE CHANGE THROUGH MACHINE LEARNING AND PROGRAM FOR THE SAMEJuly 2020August 2023Allow3700YesNo
16929500SURFACE DATA, ACQUISITION, STORAGE, AND ASSESSMENT SYSTEMJuly 2020August 2023Allow3700YesNo
16900137RESOURCE OPTIMIZATION BASED ON VIDEO FRAME ANALYSISJune 2020August 2023Allow3800YesNo
15940311NFC SYSTEM FOR UNLOCKING A VEHICLE VIA SMARTPHONE BIOMETRIC AUTHENTICATIONMarch 2018April 2019Allow1310NoNo

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 FLORES, LEON - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner FLORES, LEON works in Art Unit 2671 and has examined 13 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 76.9%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner FLORES, LEON's allowance rate of 76.9% places them in the 45% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by FLORES, LEON receive 0.62 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 2% 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 FLORES, LEON is 34 months. This places the examiner in the 44% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +37.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by FLORES, LEON. This interview benefit is in the 84% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 98% 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 Cooperation and Flexibility

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 40.0% of allowed cases (in the 98% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.

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.