Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17138566 | METHODS AND DEVICES FOR PRESENTING VIDEO INFORMATION | December 2020 | January 2024 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17126710 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF COMBINING IMAGING MODALITIES FOR IMPROVED TISSUE DETECTION | December 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 15734443 | REGION EXTRACTION MODEL LEARNING APPARATUS, REGION EXTRACTION MODEL LEARNING METHOD, AND PROGRAM | December 2020 | July 2023 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17087240 | AUTOMATED ORGAN RISK SEGMENTATION MACHINE LEARNING METHODS AND SYSTEMS | November 2020 | July 2023 | Allow | 33 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17075175 | GENERATING MAPPING INFORMATION BASED ON IMAGE LOCATIONS | October 2020 | November 2023 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17073951 | PARAMETER SELECTION MODEL USING IMAGE ANALYSIS | October 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17073123 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING A RAPID VIRTUAL DIAGNOSTIC COMPANION FOR USE IN DIAGNOSIS OF CANCER AND RELATED CONDITIONS USING IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY BASED UPON A NEURAL NETWORK | October 2020 | November 2024 | Allow | 49 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17040835 | AUTOMATIC FAULT DETECTION IN HYBRID IMAGING | September 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 51 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 17040416 | DEEP ENCODER-DECODER MODELS FOR RECONSTRUCTING BIOMEDICAL IMAGES | September 2020 | June 2024 | Allow | 45 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16964292 | CLOUD COMPUTING FLEXIBLE LARGE AREA MOSAIC ENGINE | July 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 48 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16931642 | MEDICAL IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE DIAGNOSIS APPARATUS | July 2020 | May 2024 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 16918994 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING FLAWS ON PANELS USING IMAGES OF THE PANELS | July 2020 | November 2023 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16959219 | IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION EMPLOYING TAILORED EDGE PRESERVING REGULARIZATION | June 2020 | June 2023 | Allow | 35 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16902398 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING CLUTTER SUPPRESSION IN VESSELS DEPICTED IN B-MODE ULTRASOUND IMAGES | June 2020 | January 2024 | Abandon | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16869177 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AUTOMATIC INTRINSIC CAMERA CALIBRATION USING IMAGES OF A PLANAR CALIBRATION PATTERN | May 2020 | October 2024 | Allow | 54 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16761490 | IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEM FOR IMPROVING VISIBILITY OF INDOCYANINE GREEN IMAGE | May 2020 | August 2024 | Allow | 51 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16862382 | ABNORMALITY DETECTION DEVICE AND ABNORMALITY DETECTION METHOD | April 2020 | January 2025 | Abandon | 57 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 16837733 | DETERMINING LEVELS OF HYPERTENSION FROM RETINAL VASCULATURE IMAGES | April 2020 | September 2024 | Allow | 54 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16835602 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ESTIMATING POSE | March 2020 | May 2024 | Allow | 49 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16795556 | SELECTIVELT BRIGHTENING AN IMAGE IN RESPONSE TO A BRIGHTNESS LEVEL CHANGE BY MEDICAL IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE, MEDICAL OBSERVATION DEVICE, METHOD OF PROCESSING IMAGE, AND COMPUTER READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM | February 2020 | May 2024 | Abandon | 51 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16688170 | UNSUPERVISED LEARNING-BASED MAGNETIC RESONANCE RECONSTRUCTION | November 2019 | November 2023 | Abandon | 48 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16665040 | ENDOSCOPE DIAGNOSIS SUPPORT SYSTEM, STORAGE MEDIUM, AND ENDOSCOPE DIAGNOSIS SUPPORT METHOD | October 2019 | May 2025 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16500370 | ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TESTING WITH LARGE-VOLUME LIGHT SCATTERING IMAGING AND DEEP LEARNING VIDEO MICROSCOPY | October 2019 | August 2023 | Allow | 47 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16324915 | A SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CHARACTERIZATION OF CANNABACEAE PLANTS | February 2019 | September 2023 | Allow | 55 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15698376 | TISSUE PHASIC CLASSIFICATION MAPPING SYSTEM AND METHOD | September 2017 | February 2024 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15665735 | ESTABLISHING A CONTOUR OF A STRUCTURE BASED ON IMAGE INFORMATION | August 2017 | October 2023 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15092587 | METHODS AND DEVICES FOR GENERATING, ENCODING OR DECODING IMAGES WITH A FIRST DYNAMIC RANGE, AND CORRESPONDING COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM | April 2016 | January 2019 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14772794 | A METHOD AND X-RAY SYSTEM FOR COMPUTER AIDED DETECTION OF STRUCTURES IN X-RAY IMAGES | September 2015 | January 2019 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14666386 | ORGAN-SPECIFIC IMAGE DISPLAY | March 2015 | January 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 14 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14124998 | Systems and Methods For Sensing Occupancy | December 2013 | May 2014 | Allow | 5 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13170126 | Method for Performing Pattern Decomposition Based on Feature Pitch | June 2011 | August 2013 | Allow | 25 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12711395 | Computationally Efficient Method for Image Segmentation with Intensity and Texture Discrimination | February 2010 | March 2013 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12712180 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MEASURING LENS QUALITY | February 2010 | July 2013 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11697189 | AUTOMATIC DETECTION AND MAPPING OF SYMMETRIES IN AN IMAGE | April 2007 | March 2013 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10503424 | Unit for and method of segmentation using average homogeneity | August 2004 | July 2013 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner THIRUGNANAM, GANDHI.
With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.
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.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner THIRUGNANAM, GANDHI works in Art Unit 2672 and has examined 35 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 77.1%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 48 months.
Examiner THIRUGNANAM, GANDHI's allowance rate of 77.1% places them in the 46% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by THIRUGNANAM, GANDHI receive 3.97 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 96% 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 THIRUGNANAM, GANDHI is 48 months. This places the examiner in the 9% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +12.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by THIRUGNANAM, GANDHI. This interview benefit is in the 48% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 16% 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 23.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 33% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 33.3% of appeals filed. This is in the 5% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 91% 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.