USPTO Examiner GAUTHIER STEVEN B - Art Unit 2813

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18637061SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICEApril 2024February 2025Allow1000NoNo
18617113SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGEMarch 2024January 2025Allow1010YesNo
18053012INTEGRATED CIRCUIT AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAMENovember 2022February 2025Allow2720NoNo
17841223Die Bonding Pads and Methods of Forming the SameJune 2022January 2025Allow3101NoNo
17700532SEMICONDUCTOR MODULEMarch 2022February 2025Allow3520YesYes
17607194SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICEOctober 2021March 2025Allow4030NoNo
17282247ELECTRONIC DEVICE, CONTROL METHOD OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND CONTROL PROGRAM OF ELECTRONIC DEVICEApril 2021February 2025Abandon4721YesNo
16908157DISPLAY APPARATUSJune 2020August 2021Allow1400YesNo
16846034MANUFACTURING METHOD OF SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTUREApril 2020September 2021Allow1721YesNo
16833150SPAD IMAGE SENSOR AND ASSOCIATED FABRICATING METHODMarch 2020September 2021Allow1821YesNo
16792251CHIP PACKAGE STRUCTURE AND METHOD FOR FORMING CHIP PACKAGEFebruary 2020September 2021Allow1921NoNo
16733339DISPLAY DEVICEJanuary 2020October 2021Allow2121YesNo
16716309DISPLAY PANELDecember 2019August 2021Allow2021YesNo
16708950ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICEDecember 2019August 2021Allow2021YesNo
16696531ELECTROLUMINESCENT DISPLAY APPARATUSNovember 2019September 2021Allow2111NoNo
16689627ELECTROLUMINESCENT DISPLAY DEVICENovember 2019August 2021Allow2111YesNo
16667233LIGHTING DEVICE AND LIGHTING MODULEOctober 2019May 2023Abandon4221NoNo
16654497SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE STRUCTURE WITH AIR GAP AND METHOD FOR PREPARING THE SAMEOctober 2019September 2021Allow2321YesNo
16487017SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE, POWER CONVERSION DEVICE, AND MOVING BODYAugust 2019September 2021Allow2511YesNo
16541615METHOD OF DEPOSITING SILICON NITRIDEAugust 2019September 2021Allow2511NoNo
16515024PACKAGE STRUCTURE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAMEJuly 2019September 2021Allow2621NoNo
16515003THREE-DIMENSIONAL INTEGRATED CIRCUIT STRUCTURES AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING THE SAMEJuly 2019September 2021Allow2621YesNo
16509548ARRAY SUBSTRATE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, DISPLAY SUBSTRATE, AND DISPLAY DEVICEJuly 2019September 2021Allow2621YesNo
16510310VERTICAL BOARD-TYPE CAPACITOR AND IMAGE SENSING DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAMEJuly 2019September 2021Allow2721YesNo
16510087SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICEJuly 2019October 2021Allow2721YesNo
16317536Light Emitting DeviceJanuary 2019August 2021Allow3141YesNo
15858746SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND CHARGING SYSTEM USING THE SAMEDecember 2017August 2021Allow4321YesNo
14913747METHODS OF MANUFACTURING WIDE BAND GAP SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND SEMICONDUCTOR MODULE, AND WIDE BAND GAP SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND SEMICONDUCTOR MODULEFebruary 2016December 2016Allow1011YesNo
14791653SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAMEJuly 2015February 2017Allow2021YesNo
14789459DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAMEJuly 2015April 2017Allow2131YesNo
14131569Organic Optoelectronic Device And Method For The Encapsulation ThereofJanuary 2014August 2015Allow1920YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner GAUTHIER, STEVEN B.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
1
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(100.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
97.3%
Higher 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, 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.

Strategic Recommendations

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 - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

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.

Allowance Patterns

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.

Office Action Patterns

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.

Prosecution Timeline

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.

Interview Effectiveness

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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

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 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 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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

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

  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • RCEs are effective: This examiner has a high allowance rate after RCE compared to others. If you receive a final rejection and have substantive amendments or arguments, an RCE is likely to be successful.
  • Request pre-appeal conferences: PACs are highly effective with this examiner. Before filing a full appeal brief, request a PAC to potentially resolve issues without full PTAB review.
  • Appeal filing as negotiation tool: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

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.