Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17136603 | HIGH-RESOLUTION DISPLAY APPARATUS WITH LOW-RESISTANCE WIRING | December 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17256885 | METHOD FOR ESTIMATING TWIN DEFECT DENSITY | December 2020 | June 2023 | Allow | 30 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17134595 | THIN-FILM TRANSISTOR SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY APPARATUS COMPRISING THE SAME | December 2020 | December 2022 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17135919 | PIXEL ARRAY SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING AC EVEDD DRIVER AND DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME | December 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17134068 | Organic Light Emitting Display Device HAVING EMISSION AREA AND NON_EMISSION AREA FOR EACH OF THE PLURALITY OF SUB-PIXELS | December 2020 | April 2023 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17132701 | TRANSPARENT DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING DISPLAY AREA INCLUDING TRANSMISSIVE AREA AND NON-TRANSMISSIVE AREA | December 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17129342 | ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING A PLURALITY OF GREEN SUB PIXELS DISPOSED BETWEEN AT LEAST ONE RED SUB PIXEL AND AT LEAST ONE BLUE SUB PIXEL | December 2020 | December 2022 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17128900 | LENS ARRAY, IMAGING DEVICE, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING LENS ARRAY | December 2020 | March 2024 | Abandon | 38 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17123118 | DISPLAY DEVICE | December 2020 | March 2023 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17120765 | DISPLAY APPARATUS COMPRISNG A PARTITION WALL ON AN ORGANIC INSULATING LAYER AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME | December 2020 | February 2023 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17115931 | DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME | December 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 26 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17111897 | ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING A GATE INSULATING LAYER WITH CONTROLLED DIELECTRIC CONSTANTS AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME | December 2020 | February 2023 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17094174 | TRANSPARENT DISPLAY PANEL HAVING AN ELECTRODE CONTACT OF AUXILIARY ELECTRODE CONNECTED TO A PORTION OF SECOND ELECTRODE AND TRANSPARENT DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME | November 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17077165 | SPIN-CURRENT MAGNETIZATION ROTATIONAL ELEMENT AND SPIN ORBIT TORQUE TYPE MAGNETORESISTANCE EFFECT ELEMENT | October 2020 | November 2022 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16988984 | ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DIODE DISPLAY HAVING ELECTRODE STRUCTURE FOR IMPROVED DISPLAY QUALITY | August 2020 | February 2023 | Allow | 30 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16958284 | DISPLAY PANEL WITH ANODE ELECTRODE COMPRISING FIRST TRANSPARENT CONDUCTIVE LAYER AND METAL LAYER, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, AND DISPLAY APPARATUS | June 2020 | August 2023 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16756932 | DISPLAY PANEL AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF | April 2020 | February 2023 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16460850 | Image Sensor and Image Sensor Pixel Having JFET Source Follower | July 2019 | September 2022 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16454423 | RFI FREE PICTURE FRAME METAL STIFFENER | June 2019 | January 2023 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11981072 | TRENCH MOSFET WITH IMPLANTED DRIFT REGION | October 2007 | October 2009 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner DANG, PHUC T.
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, 0.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is less effective here than in most other areas.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner DANG, PHUC T works in Art Unit 2823 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 26 months.
Examiner DANG, PHUC T'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 DANG, PHUC T receive 0.90 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by DANG, PHUC T is 26 months. This places the examiner in the 75% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +5.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by DANG, PHUC T. This interview benefit is in the 31% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 41% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 4% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 5.0% of allowed cases (in the 87% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 31.6% of allowed cases (in the 97% 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.