Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18771543 | SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE | July 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18750067 | DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING CONNECTION WIRING PART LATERALLY ADJACENT TO DRIVING VOLTAGE WIRING | June 2024 | February 2025 | Allow | 8 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18672877 | SOLDERABLE AND WIRE BONDABLE PART MARKING | May 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18645403 | DISPLAY SUBSTRATE INCLUDING CONNECTION LINE AND POWER LINE SURROUNDING DISPLAY AREA, PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF, AND DISPLAY DEVICE | April 2024 | August 2025 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18442357 | STACKED STRUCTURE FOR CMOS IMAGE SENSORS | February 2024 | August 2025 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18510797 | DISPLAY PANEL INCLUDING ACTIVE PATTERN OVERLAPPING SHIELDING PATTERN, AND DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME | November 2023 | August 2025 | Allow | 21 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18378465 | SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES HAVING AN ELECTROMAGNETICALLY TRANSMISSIVE LID STRUCTURE AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES HAVING AN ELECTROMAGNETICALLY TRANSMISSIVE LID STRUCTURE | October 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 27 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 18367896 | SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE | September 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 29 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18351542 | SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE WITH METAL CONNECTOR HAVING NOTCH | July 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18345476 | SIDE-WETTABLE SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE DEVICE WITH HEAT DISSIPATION SURFACE STRUCTURE | June 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18331385 | SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE WITH ENHANCED BONDING, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME, AND POWER CONVERSION DEVICE | June 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18195178 | SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE HAVING AN EMBEDDED ELECTRICAL CONDUCTOR CONNECTED BETWEEN PINS OF A SEMICONDUCTOR DIE AND A FURTHER DEVICE | May 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18181950 | DISCRETE DUAL PADS FOR A CIRCUIT | March 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18113543 | CMOS DEVICE, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING CMOS DEVICE, AND SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE INCLUDING CMOS DEVICE | February 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 28 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17946454 | Method of Forming a Semiconductor Device Including an Absorption Layer | September 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17897753 | SILICON CARBIDE SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE INCLUDING ALTERNATELY PROVIDED PILLARS HAVING DIFFERENT IMPURITY CONCENTRATIONS | August 2022 | August 2025 | Allow | 36 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17802556 | DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY APPARATUS INCLUDING PHOTOELECTRIC SENSING STRUCTURE AND COLLIMATION LIGHT PATH STRUCTURE CONFIGURED TO AVOID CROSSTALK | August 2022 | April 2025 | Allow | 32 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17879829 | DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING LTPS AND TAOS TFTS, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DISPLAY DEVICE | August 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17759849 | THIN FILM TRANSISTOR INCLUDING ACTIVE LAYER HETEROSTRUCTURE METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME, AND DISPLAY PANEL | July 2022 | August 2025 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17807794 | METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING CONDUCTIVE PILLAR STRUCTURE FOR SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE AND CONDUCTIVE PILLAR STRUCTURE FOR SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE | June 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17689017 | SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE COMPRISING MUTUALLY SEPARATED TRENCH STRUCTURES | March 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 48 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17652989 | HIGH-SPEED, LARGE-AREA SEPARATE ABSORPTION AND DRIFT PHOTODETECTOR | March 2022 | August 2025 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17582326 | LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE HAVING OPERATING ZONE AND LIGHT-EMITTING APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME | January 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 48 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17623795 | METHODS, APPARATUSES, AND MATERIALS FOR PRODUCING MICRO-PIXELATED LEDS USING ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING | December 2021 | October 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17538892 | DISPLAY PANEL, EVAPORATION MASK, DISPLAY DEVICE AND PREPARATION METHOD | November 2021 | August 2025 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17603602 | OPTOELECTRONIC SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENT | October 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 48 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17603849 | NITRIDE SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME | October 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 48 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17044039 | DISPLAY DEVICE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DISPLAY DEVICE, AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS | September 2020 | December 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner RICHARDS, NORMAN DREW.
With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.
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.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner RICHARDS, NORMAN DREW works in Art Unit 2892 and has examined 5 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 60.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 48 months.
Examiner RICHARDS, NORMAN DREW's allowance rate of 60.0% places them in the 20% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by RICHARDS, NORMAN DREW receive 1.60 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 31% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by RICHARDS, NORMAN DREW is 48 months. This places the examiner in the 8% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
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.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 2% 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.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 15% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 1% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 28% percentile). This examiner makes examiner's amendments less often than average. You may need to make most claim amendments yourself.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 33% 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.