Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17072992 | NANOWIRE STRUCTURES HAVING WRAP-AROUND CONTACTS | October 2020 | May 2023 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16940247 | METHOD FOR FORMING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE | July 2020 | June 2023 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16927249 | Through Via Structure and Method | July 2020 | April 2023 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16889726 | SEMICONDUCTOR NON-VOLATILE MEMORY DEVICES | June 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 31 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16877116 | Semiconductor Device and Method | May 2020 | March 2023 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16831658 | LOGIC CHIP INCLUDING EMBEDDED MAGNETIC TUNNEL JUNCTIONS | March 2020 | November 2023 | Abandon | 44 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 16327194 | TRANSISTORS INCLUDING SOURCE/DRAIN EMPLOYING DOUBLE-CHARGE DOPANTS | February 2019 | April 2023 | Allow | 50 | 7 | 0 | No | No |
| 16150409 | Systems and Methods for Bidirectional Device Fabrication | October 2018 | September 2020 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 15884461 | METHODS AND PACKAGES FOR ENHANCING RELIABILITY OF ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICES | January 2018 | December 2023 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner QUINTO, KEVIN V.
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, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner QUINTO, KEVIN V works in Art Unit 2821 and has examined 9 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 77.8%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.
Examiner QUINTO, KEVIN V's allowance rate of 77.8% places them in the 47% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by QUINTO, KEVIN V receive 3.33 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 89% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues more office actions than most examiners, which may indicate thorough examination or difficulty in reaching agreement with applicants.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by QUINTO, KEVIN V is 34 months. This places the examiner in the 44% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +28.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by QUINTO, KEVIN V. This interview benefit is in the 75% 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, 12.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 9% 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 12.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 14% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 92% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 133.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 96% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.
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.