Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17026199 | VERTICAL TRANSISTOR FLOATING BODY ONE TRANSISTOR DRAM MEMORY CELL | September 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17008007 | LED LAMP | August 2020 | December 2022 | Allow | 27 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17003037 | MEMORY DEVICE HAVING 2-TRANSISTOR VERTICAL MEMORY CELL AND A COMMON PLATE | August 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17003054 | MEMORY DEVICE HAVING 2-TRANSISTOR VERTICAL MEMORY CELL AND SHIELD STRUCTURES | August 2020 | June 2022 | Allow | 21 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17003065 | MEMORY DEVICE HAVING 2-TRANSISTOR VERTICAL MEMORY CELL AND A COMMON PLATE | August 2020 | May 2023 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16909017 | THIN FILM TRANSISTOR AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, ARRAY SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY DEVICE | June 2020 | March 2023 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16908243 | Method and Structure for CMOS-MEMS Thin Film Encapsulation | June 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 31 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16908386 | WAFER OBSERVATION APPARATUS AND WAFER OBSERVATION METHOD | June 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16887062 | APPARATUS AND METHOD OF OPTIMIZING EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS USING NEURAL NETWORK | May 2020 | May 2023 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16882039 | MICROELECTROMECHANICAL APPARATUS HAVING HERMITIC CHAMBER | May 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16865226 | INTER-PROCESSOR DATA TRANSFER IN A MACHINE LEARNING ACCELERATOR, USING STATICALLY SCHEDULED INSTRUCTIONS | May 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16846263 | HETEROGENEOUS COMPUTING ON A SYSTEM-ON-CHIP, INCLUDING MACHINE LEARNING INFERENCE | April 2020 | December 2022 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16834440 | STRUCTURE AND FORMATION METHOD OF SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE WITH STRESSOR | March 2020 | December 2022 | Allow | 33 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16643919 | WIRING STRUCTURE, PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF, AND DISPLAY DEVICE | March 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16751025 | TRANSPORT APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR TRANSFERRING A SAMPLE BETWEEN TWO DEVICES, AND SYSTEM FOR SAMPLE MANIPULATION | January 2020 | April 2023 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16628021 | APPARATUS FOR DISTRIBUTING GAS, AND APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING SUBSTRATE | December 2019 | February 2023 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16691885 | SUBSTRATE FIXING DEVICE | November 2019 | January 2023 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16665883 | INTEGRATED DEVICE COMPRISING INTERCONNECT STRUCTURES HAVING AN INNER INTERCONNECT, A DIELECTRIC LAYER AND A CONDUCTIVE LAYER | October 2019 | February 2023 | Allow | 39 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16495369 | PLASMA PROCESSING DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING SAMPLE USING SAME | September 2019 | September 2023 | Abandon | 48 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16474900 | APPARATUS, METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR DEEP LEARNING | June 2019 | April 2023 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CHIN, EDWARD.
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 CHIN, EDWARD works in Art Unit 2821 and has examined 20 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 95.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 35 months.
Examiner CHIN, EDWARD's allowance rate of 95.0% places them in the 84% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by CHIN, EDWARD receive 2.30 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 60% 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 CHIN, EDWARD is 35 months. This places the examiner in the 40% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -6.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CHIN, EDWARD. This interview benefit is in the 5% 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, 41.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 92% 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 25.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 35% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.
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 96% 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 92% 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 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.