Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18637061 | SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE | April 2024 | February 2025 | Allow | 10 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18617113 | SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE | March 2024 | January 2025 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18053012 | INTEGRATED CIRCUIT AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME | November 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17841223 | Die Bonding Pads and Methods of Forming the Same | June 2022 | January 2025 | Allow | 31 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17700532 | SEMICONDUCTOR MODULE | March 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17607194 | SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE | October 2021 | March 2025 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17282247 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE, CONTROL METHOD OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND CONTROL PROGRAM OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE | April 2021 | February 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16908157 | DISPLAY APPARATUS | June 2020 | August 2021 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16846034 | MANUFACTURING METHOD OF SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE | April 2020 | September 2021 | Allow | 17 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16833150 | SPAD IMAGE SENSOR AND ASSOCIATED FABRICATING METHOD | March 2020 | September 2021 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16792251 | CHIP PACKAGE STRUCTURE AND METHOD FOR FORMING CHIP PACKAGE | February 2020 | September 2021 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16733339 | DISPLAY DEVICE | January 2020 | October 2021 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16716309 | DISPLAY PANEL | December 2019 | August 2021 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16708950 | ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICE | December 2019 | August 2021 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16696531 | ELECTROLUMINESCENT DISPLAY APPARATUS | November 2019 | September 2021 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16689627 | ELECTROLUMINESCENT DISPLAY DEVICE | November 2019 | August 2021 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16667233 | LIGHTING DEVICE AND LIGHTING MODULE | October 2019 | May 2023 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16654497 | SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE STRUCTURE WITH AIR GAP AND METHOD FOR PREPARING THE SAME | October 2019 | September 2021 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16487017 | SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE, POWER CONVERSION DEVICE, AND MOVING BODY | August 2019 | September 2021 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16541615 | METHOD OF DEPOSITING SILICON NITRIDE | August 2019 | September 2021 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16515024 | PACKAGE STRUCTURE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME | July 2019 | September 2021 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16515003 | THREE-DIMENSIONAL INTEGRATED CIRCUIT STRUCTURES AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME | July 2019 | September 2021 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16509548 | ARRAY SUBSTRATE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, DISPLAY SUBSTRATE, AND DISPLAY DEVICE | July 2019 | September 2021 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16510310 | VERTICAL BOARD-TYPE CAPACITOR AND IMAGE SENSING DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME | July 2019 | September 2021 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16510087 | SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE | July 2019 | October 2021 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16317536 | Light Emitting Device | January 2019 | August 2021 | Allow | 31 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15858746 | SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND CHARGING SYSTEM USING THE SAME | December 2017 | August 2021 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14913747 | METHODS OF MANUFACTURING WIDE BAND GAP SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND SEMICONDUCTOR MODULE, AND WIDE BAND GAP SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND SEMICONDUCTOR MODULE | February 2016 | December 2016 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14791653 | SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME | July 2015 | February 2017 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14789459 | DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME | July 2015 | April 2017 | Allow | 21 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14131569 | Organic Optoelectronic Device And Method For The Encapsulation Thereof | January 2014 | August 2015 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner GAUTHIER, STEVEN B.
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 GAUTHIER, STEVEN B works in Art Unit 2813 and has examined 29 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 93.1%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 25 months.
Examiner GAUTHIER, STEVEN B's allowance rate of 93.1% places them in the 80% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by GAUTHIER, STEVEN B receive 1.83 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 56% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by GAUTHIER, STEVEN B is 25 months. This places the examiner in the 67% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +7.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by GAUTHIER, STEVEN B. This interview benefit is in the 39% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 47.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 96% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 7.1% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 3% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments compared to other examiners. You should generally plan to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry. Per MPEP § 714.12, primary examiners have discretion in entering after-final amendments, and this examiner exercises that discretion conservatively.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 95% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 91% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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 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 7.4% of allowed cases (in the 84% 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.
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.