Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17256585 | SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE HAVING RECESSES FORMING AREAS | December 2020 | December 2023 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16949894 | DIRECT-COOLING FOR SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE MODULES | November 2020 | June 2024 | Abandon | 43 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14017050 | SUPERLATTICE PHASE CHANGE MEMORY DEVICE | September 2013 | May 2015 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 13748294 | INCORPORATION OF PASSIVES AND FINE PITCH THROUGH VIA FOR PACKAGE ON PACKAGE | January 2013 | July 2018 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner MUNOZ, ANDRES F works in Art Unit 2818 and has examined 4 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 75.0%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 43 months.
Examiner MUNOZ, ANDRES F's allowance rate of 75.0% places them in the 42% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by MUNOZ, ANDRES F receive 2.50 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 69% 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 MUNOZ, ANDRES F is 43 months. This places the examiner in the 17% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -50.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MUNOZ, ANDRES F. This interview benefit is in the 0% 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, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 16% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show lower effectiveness with this examiner compared to others. Consider whether a continuation application might be more strategic, especially if you need to add new matter or significantly broaden claims.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 2% 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.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 24% 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 32% 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.