Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15963580 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE | April 2018 | April 2019 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15748818 | OBJECT TYPE BASED IMAGE PROCESSING | January 2018 | March 2019 | Allow | 13 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15699420 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM | September 2017 | October 2018 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15679283 | IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS CONTROL METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | August 2017 | August 2018 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15596633 | USING TRANSIENT RESPONSES TO DETERMINE CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTROL PANEL CONNECTIONS | May 2017 | December 2018 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15510615 | IMAGE FORMING SYSTEM, IMAGE FORMING DEVICE, MOBILE COMMUNICATION TERMINAL, AND RELAY SERVER | March 2017 | September 2017 | Allow | 6 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15233607 | DRAWING APPARATUS AND DRAWING METHOD FOR DRAWING APPARATUS | August 2016 | October 2017 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14992165 | DISPLAY APPARATUS FOR DISPLAYING SHIFT STATE OF POWER SAVING MODE, DISPLAY METHOD AND STORAGE MEDIUM | January 2016 | March 2018 | Allow | 26 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 14976265 | IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS | December 2015 | April 2017 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14616053 | Drawing Apparatus and Control Method for Drawing with Drawing Apparatus | February 2015 | December 2016 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14610740 | GHOSTING COMPENSATION IN RELIEF IMAGES FOR DIRECTIONAL PRINTS | January 2015 | June 2016 | Allow | 16 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14537695 | DRAWING APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR DRAWING WITH DRAWING APPARATUS | November 2014 | September 2016 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14482401 | IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM | September 2014 | January 2016 | Allow | 16 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14341201 | DRAWING APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD OF DRAWING APPARATUS | July 2014 | February 2017 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13956617 | SHEET CONVEYANCE DEVICE THAT CAN DETECT SHEET SIZE | August 2013 | January 2015 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13954775 | ELECTRONIC CONTENT MANAGEMENT WORKFLOW | July 2013 | August 2015 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13954337 | IMAGE FORMING SYSTEM SHARING RESOURCES | July 2013 | March 2015 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13846489 | IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS | March 2013 | October 2014 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13839087 | SECURE APPROVAL PROCESS | March 2013 | July 2015 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13784450 | Print Data Generation Device, Printing Method, and Program | March 2013 | November 2014 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13780919 | COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING DRIVER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING UNINSTALLATION PROGRAM AND INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE | February 2013 | February 2015 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13781652 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, PRINTING SYSTEM, ERROR NOTIFICATION METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM THEREOF | February 2013 | July 2015 | Allow | 29 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13776712 | DOCUMENT SCANNING AND VISUALIZATION SYSTEM USING A MOBILE DEVICE | February 2013 | June 2013 | Allow | 4 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13741807 | DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, CONTROL METHOD, AND PROGRAM | January 2013 | December 2014 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13715369 | IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS | December 2012 | June 2013 | Allow | 6 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13686194 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR ANALYZING THE IMPACT OF MACHINE FAILURE DATA ON A PRINT SHOP | November 2012 | November 2014 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13686446 | WINDOW PICTURE SYSTEM | November 2012 | May 2014 | Allow | 17 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13681865 | IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF | November 2012 | July 2013 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13630191 | IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM | September 2012 | June 2014 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13630719 | IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE FORMING SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR FORMING IMAGES | September 2012 | May 2014 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13329851 | IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS | December 2011 | September 2016 | Allow | 57 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13165633 | IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS | June 2011 | November 2013 | Allow | 29 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13116773 | IMAGE READING DEVICE AND IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS | May 2011 | August 2014 | Allow | 39 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13131042 | CONTROL DEVICE, LASER PROJECTION DEVICE, RECORDING METHOD, COMPUTER PROGRAM, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | May 2011 | November 2013 | Allow | 29 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13064310 | Medium transport apparatus, image scanning apparatus and image processing aparatus | March 2011 | April 2014 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 13050540 | IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS AND IMAGE OUTPUT APPARATUS | March 2011 | April 2015 | Allow | 49 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13036147 | WORKFLOW REGENERATION IN A PRINT SHOP ENVIRONMENT | February 2011 | April 2017 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12968027 | PRINT DATA PROCESSING APPARATUS, PRINT DATA PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | December 2010 | September 2013 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12958819 | Guilloche mark generation | December 2010 | November 2013 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12954954 | TECHNIQUES FOR IMAGE DUPLICATION OPTIMIZATION | November 2010 | September 2014 | Allow | 46 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 12797049 | IMAGE FORMING SYSTEM WITH IMAGE FORMING DEVICE PRIORITIZATION FUNCTION AND METHOD THEREOF | June 2010 | December 2012 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12779245 | Information Extraction Apparatus, Information Extraction Method, Information-Extraction Computer Program Product, And Storage Medium | May 2010 | April 2013 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12753343 | IMAGE READING APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD | April 2010 | October 2013 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12632346 | IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS | December 2009 | October 2012 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12627916 | IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE FORMING SYSTEM, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | November 2009 | July 2012 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12624735 | SCANNING AND CAPTURING DIGITAL IMAGES USING RESIDUE DETECTION | November 2009 | August 2012 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12604506 | IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF | October 2009 | August 2012 | Allow | 34 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12603172 | COLOR PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHOD THEREOF | October 2009 | May 2012 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12465082 | PROFILE CREATION METHOD AND PROFILE CREATION APPARATUS | May 2009 | September 2012 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12419948 | JOB PROCESSING APPARATUS, METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE SAME,AND STORAGE MEDIUM | April 2009 | September 2015 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12278652 | METHOD FOR SELECTING A FORMAT FOR A SECTION TO BE PRINTED | August 2008 | September 2018 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11705976 | Data processing device, method, storage medium storing program therefor, and signal for discharging liquid droplets, and liquid droplet discharging device | February 2007 | April 2013 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BARNES, TED W.
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 BARNES, TED W works in Art Unit 2682 and has examined 52 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 100.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 26 months.
Examiner BARNES, TED W's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 96% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by BARNES, TED W receive 1.75 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.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by BARNES, TED W is 26 months. This places the examiner in the 75% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BARNES, TED W. This interview benefit is in the 16% percentile among all examiners. Note: Interviews show limited statistical benefit with this examiner compared to others, though they may still be valuable for clarifying issues.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 32.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 71% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 45.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 69% 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 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 18% 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, 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's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 23% 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 30% 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.