Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19005582 | Optical Probe System for the Electron Microscope | December 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 14 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18185280 | Correction of Thermal Expansion in a Lithographic Device | March 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18066344 | Continuous 3D-Cooled Atom Beam Interferometer | December 2022 | March 2026 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18055187 | INACTIVATING DEVICE AND OPTICAL FILTER | November 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17977537 | WIRE OR ROD SHAPED EXTRACTION ELECTRODE OPTICS | October 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17966561 | EMBEDDED NEAR-ULTRAVIOLET SELF-CLEANING ELECTRONICS FOR PASSENGER CONTROL UNIT (PCU) | October 2022 | March 2026 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17956021 | CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM WRITING METHOD AND CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM WRITING APPARATUS | September 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17820798 | CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS OF MULTI-BEAM GENERATING AND MULTI-BEAM DEFLECTING UNITS | August 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17819048 | MULTI CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM WRITING METHOD AND MULTI CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM WRITING APPARATUS | August 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17812815 | MULTI CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM WRITING METHOD AND MULTI CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM WRITING APPARATUS | July 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16915965 | ZIRCON ID-TIMS PB ISOTOPE DETERMINATION METHOD USING MULTIPLE ION COUNTERS WITH DYNAMIC MULTI-COLLECTION PROTOCOL | June 2020 | May 2021 | Allow | 11 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16781569 | DEVICE FOR GENERATING NEGATIVE IONS BY IMPINGING POSITIVE IONS ON A TARGET | February 2020 | February 2021 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16434924 | ION ACCELERATION COMPLEX FOR THE TREATMENT OF ATRIAL FIBRILLATIONS | June 2019 | December 2020 | Allow | 18 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16254795 | Systems and Methods for Pesticide Detection Using Mass Spectroscopy | January 2019 | November 2020 | Allow | 22 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16306238 | DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR DISSOCIATION OF IONS USING LIGHT EMITTING DIODES | November 2018 | May 2021 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16202061 | SAMPLE CHIP FOR ELECTRON MICROSCOPE AND ITS RELATED APPLICATION | November 2018 | March 2021 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16118891 | Charged Particle Beam Device Having Inspection Scan Direction Based on Scan with Smaller Dose | August 2018 | January 2021 | Allow | 29 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15833706 | METHOD FOR MEASURING DEPTH PROFILE OF PARTICLE BEAM USING ACOUSTIC SIGNALS GENERATED BY THE PARTICLE BEAM | December 2017 | March 2020 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15730688 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DIRECTING AN ION BEAM USING ELECTROMAGNETS | October 2017 | July 2020 | Allow | 34 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15471181 | LAMINATED FILM AND PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME, AS WELL AS METHOD FOR ANALYZING LAMINATED FILM | March 2017 | April 2021 | Allow | 48 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15503571 | HIGH VOLTAGE FEEDTHROUGH ASSEMBLY, TIME-RESOLVED TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPE AND METHOD OF ELECTRODE MANIPULATION IN A VACUUM ENVIRONMENT | February 2017 | April 2019 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14788238 | MAGNETIC FIELD ACTUATION OF DETECTORS IN A COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER | June 2015 | May 2017 | Allow | 23 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14443720 | SEMICONDUCTOR INSPECTION DEVICE INCLUDING A COUNTER ELECTRODE WITH ADJUSTABLE POTENTIALS USED TO OBTAIN IMAGES FOR DETECTION OF DEFECTS, AND INSPECTION METHOD USING CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM | May 2015 | October 2017 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14302885 | DRAWING APPARATUS, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING ARTICLE, BY CONTROLLING A PLURALITY OF CHARGED PARTICLE OPTICAL SYSTEMS BASED ON RESPECTIVE SETS OF SUB-DRAWING REGIONS | June 2014 | April 2019 | Allow | 58 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14364530 | SAMPLE SUPPORTING MEMBER FOR OBSERVING SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPIC IMAGE AND METHOD FOR OBSERVING SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPIC IMAGE | June 2014 | October 2016 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14363200 | GRAPHENE-BASED NANODEVICES FOR TERAHERTZ ELECTRONICS | June 2014 | July 2016 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13915430 | TARGETED SEQUENCING OF BIOMOLECULES BY PULLING THROUGH A LIQUID-LIQUID INTERFACE WITH AN ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPE | June 2013 | October 2014 | Allow | 16 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 13899728 | TARGETED SEQUENCING OF BIOMOLECULES BY PULLING THROUGH A LIQUID-LIQUID INTERFACE WITH AN ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPE | May 2013 | September 2014 | Allow | 16 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 13893054 | CONTROL IMAGING METHODS IN ADVANCED ULTRAFAST ELECTRON MICROSCOPY | May 2013 | February 2014 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13794530 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR APPLYING END CAP DC BIAS IN ION TRAPS | March 2013 | August 2015 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13794761 | MASS SPECTRUM NOISE CANCELLATION BY ALTERNATING INVERTED SYNCHRONOUS RF | March 2013 | July 2015 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13759465 | METHOD OF MAKING THIN FILM PROBE TIP FOR ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY | February 2013 | January 2014 | Allow | 11 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13726764 | SCANNING PROBE MICROSCOPE | December 2012 | May 2014 | Allow | 16 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13725592 | X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometer and X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzer | December 2012 | June 2016 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13685842 | METHOD OF CONTROLLING FREQUENCY MODULATED-ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPE | November 2012 | April 2018 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13698336 | TECHNIQUES FOR AUTOMATED PARAMETER ADJUSTMENT USING ION SIGNAL INTENSITY FEEDBACK | November 2012 | July 2013 | Allow | 8 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13576381 | MEASUREMENT OF THE SURFACE POTENTIAL OF A MATERIAL | July 2012 | February 2014 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13555632 | DEVICE TO LOAD TEM SAMPLE HOLDERS INTO A VACUUM CHAMBER | July 2012 | January 2014 | Allow | 18 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13539778 | Scanned Probe Microscopy (SPM) Probe Having Angled Tip | July 2012 | July 2014 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13492100 | SHIELDING DEVICE FOR AN IRRADIATION UNIT AND IRRADIATION METHOD | June 2012 | September 2014 | Allow | 27 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13486025 | UV CURING SYSTEM FOR SEMICONDUCTORS | June 2012 | November 2015 | Allow | 41 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13513256 | FOCUSED ION BEAM DEVICE AND FOCUSED ION BEAM PROCESSING METHOD | June 2012 | June 2013 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13511157 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A PIPELINE-TYPE ION CYCLOTRON RESONANCE MASS SPECTROMETER | May 2012 | May 2014 | Allow | 24 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13467318 | ELECTRON MICROSCOPE | May 2012 | July 2013 | Allow | 15 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13503537 | MICROBICIDAL PURIFICATION DEVICE EMPLOYING ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT FROM WHICH ULTRAVIOLET-LIGHT-IRRADIATION DEAD AREAS HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED | April 2012 | July 2014 | Allow | 27 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13287682 | APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR ABERRATION CORRECTION IN ELECTRON BEAM BASED SYSTEM | November 2011 | August 2014 | Allow | 34 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13275451 | Video rate-enabling probes for atomic force microscopy | October 2011 | November 2013 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13226590 | ION IMPLANT APPARATUS AND METHOD OF ION IMPLANTATION | September 2011 | November 2012 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CHOI, JAMES J.
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, 20.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable reconsideration.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner CHOI, JAMES J works in Art Unit 2878 and has examined 38 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 100.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 25 months.
Examiner CHOI, JAMES J's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 97% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by CHOI, JAMES J receive 2.13 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 57% 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 CHOI, JAMES J is 25 months. This places the examiner in the 80% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CHOI, JAMES J. This interview benefit is in the 15% 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, 39.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 89% 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 30.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 43% 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 95% 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, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 5% 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 2.6% of allowed cases (in the 78% 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 5.3% of allowed cases (in the 81% 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.