USPTO Examiner MISTRY ONEAL R - Art Unit 2674

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18637722Computer-Implemented Method for Operating an Imaging Facility, Imaging Facility, Computer Program and Electronically Readable Data CarrierApril 2024July 2024Allow200NoNo
18488164LIGHT STATE RECOGNITION DEVICEOctober 2023February 2026Allow2810NoNo
18452045METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IN-VEHICLE SELF-SUPERVISED TRAINING OF PERCEPTION FUNCTIONS FOR AN AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMAugust 2023December 2025Allow2810NoNo
18033774METHOD FOR MEASURING ACTUAL AREA OF DEFECT, AND METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TESTING DISPLAY PANELApril 2023September 2025Allow2910NoNo
18249715METHOD FOR PREDICTING PEDESTRIAN CROSSING BEHAVIOR FOR INTERSECTIONApril 2023November 2025Allow3110NoNo
18295352IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUMApril 2023February 2026Allow3520NoNo
18295648SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING A FEATURE GRADE FOR A PERITUMORAL FEATURE OF AN OPTOACOUSTIC IMAGEApril 2023July 2024Allow1510NoNo
18125213X-Ray Image Feature Detection And Registration Systems And MethodsMarch 2023August 2024Allow1610NoNo
18161861SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMAGE CORRECTIONJanuary 2023September 2024Allow2020NoNo
18102559SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR LARGE-SCALE LANE MARKING DETECTION USING MULTIMODAL SENSOR DATAJanuary 2023July 2024Allow1810NoNo
17913532SEGMENTATION IN MULTI-ENERGY CT DATASeptember 2022June 2025Abandon3310NoNo
17876431ASSESSMENT OF SPINAL COLUMN INTEGRITYJuly 2022April 2024Allow2010YesNo
17763575METHOD, APPARATUS AND DEVICE FOR RECOGNIZING THREE-DIMENSIONAL GESTURE BASED ON MARK POINTSMarch 2022September 2024Allow3010NoNo
17699384COUNTING METHOD, COUNTING DEVICE, AND RECORDING MEDIUMMarch 2022September 2024Allow3010YesNo
17694333AUTOMATIC MODEL RECONSTRUCTION METHOD AND AUTOMATIC MODEL RECONSTRUCTION SYSTEM FOR COMPONENT RECOGNITION MODELMarch 2022April 2025Abandon3720NoNo
17692085COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM HAVING STORED THEREIN EVALUATION PROGRAM, EVALUATION METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUSMarch 2022November 2024Abandon3310NoNo
17689345REDUCING FALSE POSITIVE DETECTIONS BASED ON CLASSIFICATION AND SEGMENTATION CUESMarch 2022September 2024Allow3010NoNo
17681062AGGREGATE TRAIT ESTIMATION FOR AGRICULTURAL PLOTSFebruary 2022September 2024Allow3110NoNo
17436383CROP YIELD PREDICTION PROGRAM AND CULTIVATION ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAMFebruary 2022November 2024Abandon3910NoNo
17637132PROCESSING APPARATUS, PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUMFebruary 2022September 2024Allow3110NoNo
17623533Systems for Detecting and Identifying Coincident ConditionsDecember 2021September 2024Allow3210YesNo
17562494GENERATIVE NEURAL NETWORKS WITH REDUCED ALIASINGDecember 2021September 2024Allow3210YesNo
17603743APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR EVALUATING PROCEEDING ROUTE OF GUIDE WIREOctober 2021July 2024Allow3310NoNo
17442649CONE BEAM ARTIFACT CORRECTION FOR GATED IMAGINGSeptember 2021July 2024Allow3310NoNo
17446946Guided Material Data CollectionSeptember 2021December 2025Allow5220NoYes
17350136AUTOMATIC SYNTHESIS OF A CONTENT-AWARE SAMPLING REGION FOR A CONTENT-AWARE FILLJune 2021July 2024Allow3740YesNo
16710320AUTOMATIC DETECTION AND RECOGNITION OF VISUAL TAGSDecember 2019June 2024Allow5460YesNo
15961132METHODS FOR COLORIMETRIC ANALYSISApril 2018April 2020Allow2410NoNo
15905919METHOD FOR CHECKING A MEDICAL IMAGE AND METHOD FOR ADAPTING AN EXAMINATION PROTOCOL DURING A MEDICAL IMAGING EXAMINATIONFebruary 2018March 2020Allow2411YesNo
15822662IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS THAT GENERATES A TOMOGRAPHIC IMAGE OF A SUBJECT BASED ON PHASE-ADJUSTED MEASUREMENT SIGNALS FROM WHICH A BACKGROUND SIGNAL IS SUBTRACTED, AND RELATED IMAGING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUMNovember 2017April 2019Allow1700NoNo
15577101SYSTEM, METHOD AND COMPUTER-ACCESSIBLE MEDIUM FOR TEXTURE ANALYSIS OF HEPATOPANCREATOBILIARY DISEASESNovember 2017September 2019Allow2210YesNo
15569090TOUCH PANEL AND TOUCH DISPLAY DEVICEOctober 2017October 2019Allow2420NoNo
15680860SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR TRACKING MOVING TARGETSAugust 2017March 2019Allow1910NoNo
15598165SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR TRACKING AND COMPENSATING FOR PATIENT MOTION DURING A MEDICAL IMAGING SCANMay 2017February 2019Allow2110NoNo
15486527TECHNIQUES FOR FINGERPRINT DETECTION AND USER AUTHENTICATIONApril 2017May 2019Allow2510NoNo
15246145IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE AND IMAGE PROCESSING METHODAugust 2016February 2019Allow3030NoNo
14841739METHOD APPARATUS AND SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING A DATA SIGNATURE OF 3D IMAGESeptember 2015December 2018Allow3930NoNo
13351609MOBILE UNIT POSITION DETECTING APPARATUS AND MOBILE UNIT POSITION DETECTING METHODJanuary 2012March 2014Allow2610NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MISTRY, ONEAL R.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
1
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
9.8%
Lower than average

What This Means

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.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
1
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
5.6%
Lower than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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.

Strategic Recommendations

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 MISTRY, ONEAL R - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner MISTRY, ONEAL R works in Art Unit 2674 and has examined 19 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 94.7%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 30 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner MISTRY, ONEAL R's allowance rate of 94.7% places them in the 83% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by MISTRY, ONEAL R receive 1.68 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 35% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by MISTRY, ONEAL R is 30 months. This places the examiner in the 60% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +7.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MISTRY, ONEAL R. This interview benefit is in the 37% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 38% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 33.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 49% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 12% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 17% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 4% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.

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 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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

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

    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.