Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17116120 | Vertical Transistors | December 2020 | December 2022 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17071951 | SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGES AND ASSOCIATED METHODS WITH SOLDER MASK OPENING(S) FOR IN-PACKAGE GROUND AND CONFORMAL COATING CONTACT | October 2020 | October 2023 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17004540 | LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE | August 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16938451 | TRANSPARENT DISPLAY DEVICE | July 2020 | February 2023 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16919072 | MICRO-TRANSFER PRINTING WITH SELECTIVE COMPONENT REMOVAL | July 2020 | October 2023 | Allow | 39 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16888349 | FERROELECTRIC FIELD EFFECT TRANSISTOR | May 2020 | March 2023 | Allow | 33 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16818494 | GRAPHENE VARACTOR INCLUDING FERROELECTRIC MATERIAL | March 2020 | April 2023 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16529833 | OXIDE SEMICONDUCTOR THIN-FILM AND THIN-FILM TRANSISTOR CONSISTED THEREOF | August 2019 | January 2023 | Allow | 42 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16517598 | High Power Lithium Ion Battery and the Method to Form | July 2019 | September 2023 | Abandon | 50 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16269702 | SEMICONDUCTOR WITH INTEGRATED ELECTRICALLY CONDUCTIVE COOLING CHANNELS | February 2019 | February 2023 | Allow | 48 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15578518 | PACKAGING METHOD FOR HIGH GAMUT WHITE LIGHT QUANTUM DOT LED | November 2017 | August 2018 | Allow | 8 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MARUF, SHEIKH.
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, 50.0% 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 MARUF, SHEIKH works in Art Unit 2823 and has examined 11 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 90.9%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 37 months.
Examiner MARUF, SHEIKH's allowance rate of 90.9% places them in the 75% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by MARUF, SHEIKH receive 2.36 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 63% 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 MARUF, SHEIKH is 37 months. This places the examiner in the 33% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +25.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MARUF, SHEIKH. This interview benefit is in the 70% 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, 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.
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, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 99% 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 25% 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.