Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17113880 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR GENERATING DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS GIVEN DOCUMENTS WITH QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS | December 2020 | October 2023 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17056554 | Direct Speech-to-Speech Translation via Machine Learning | November 2020 | March 2024 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17087114 | DIALOGUE SYSTEM AND VEHICLE HAVING THE SAME, AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING DIALOGUE SYSTEM | November 2020 | November 2023 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17019190 | Automatic Data Extraction and Conversion of Video/Images/Sound Information from a Slide presentation into an Editable Notetaking Resource with Optional Overlay of the Presenter | September 2020 | August 2023 | Allow | 35 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17017941 | MULTILINGUAL TRANSCRIPTION AT CUSTOMER ENDPOINT FOR OPTIMIZING INTERACTION RESULTS IN A CONTACT CENTER | September 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16914091 | System for Voice-To-Text Tagging for Rich Transcription of Human Speech | June 2020 | August 2023 | Allow | 37 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SIDDO, IBRAHIM.
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, 100.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner SIDDO, IBRAHIM works in Art Unit 2683 and has examined 6 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 83.3%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 37 months.
Examiner SIDDO, IBRAHIM's allowance rate of 83.3% places them in the 59% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by SIDDO, IBRAHIM receive 1.83 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 39% 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 SIDDO, IBRAHIM is 37 months. This places the examiner in the 33% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +20.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SIDDO, IBRAHIM. This interview benefit is in the 62% 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, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 41% 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.
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 51% 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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 91% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
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.