Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17046714 | NUCLEATION LAYER DEPOSITION METHOD | April 2021 | October 2023 | Allow | 36 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17124131 | DISPLAY DEVICE | December 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 25 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17119457 | DISPLAY DEVICE, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME, AND TILED DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING THE SAME | December 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17117627 | DISPLAY DEVICE | December 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 26 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16977516 | OLED DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE | September 2020 | December 2023 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16939511 | DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING A CONDUCTIVE LINE DISPOSED ON AN INSULATING LAYER GROOVE AND A METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME | July 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16957292 | Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Substrate and Manufacturing Method Thereof, Display Device | June 2020 | May 2023 | Allow | 34 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16883943 | DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE | May 2020 | August 2023 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16867597 | DISPLAY SUBSTRATE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME AND DISPLAY DEVICE | May 2020 | March 2023 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16759711 | ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DIODE (OLED) DISPLAY DEVICE | April 2020 | February 2023 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16755574 | HOLE TRANSPORT MATERIAL, PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF, AND ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE | April 2020 | May 2023 | Abandon | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16651551 | ARRAY SUBSTRATE, MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, AND DISPLAY APPARATUS | March 2020 | December 2022 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | 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 MENZ, DOUGLAS M works in Art Unit 2823 and has examined 12 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 91.7%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.
Examiner MENZ, DOUGLAS M's allowance rate of 91.7% places them in the 77% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by MENZ, DOUGLAS M receive 0.67 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 3% 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 MENZ, DOUGLAS M is 34 months. This places the examiner in the 44% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 1% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 114.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 94% 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.