Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17256565 | MICROMECHANICAL COMPONENT AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME | December 2020 | June 2025 | Allow | 54 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17124817 | SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE | December 2020 | April 2024 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17252787 | SOLID-STATE IMAGE SENSOR WITH IMAGING DEVICE BLOCKS THAT EACH INCLUDE IMAGING DEVICES | December 2020 | January 2024 | Allow | 37 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17042870 | DISPLAY SUBSTRATE, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING DISPLAY SUBSTRATE, AND DISPLAY DEVICE | September 2020 | November 2024 | Abandon | 50 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17042835 | DISPLAY DEVICE, MASK, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DISPLAY DEVICE | September 2020 | August 2024 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 16905883 | STATIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY | June 2020 | March 2025 | Allow | 57 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16904913 | DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING FINGERPRINT RECOGNITION FUNCTION | June 2020 | November 2023 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 16794208 | SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE | February 2020 | February 2025 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 16572926 | Memory Circuitry Comprising A Vertical String Of Memory Cells And A Conductive Via And Method Used In Forming A Vertical String Of Memory Cells And A Conductive Via | September 2019 | March 2024 | Allow | 54 | 6 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16225106 | LOW COST RELIABLE FAN-OUT CHIP SCALE PACKAGES | December 2018 | February 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 15859415 | PITCH-DIVIDED INTERCONNECTS FOR ADVANCED INTEGRATED CIRCUIT STRUCTURE FABRICATION | December 2017 | May 2019 | Allow | 17 | 11 | 0 | No | No |
| 15652162 | ENHANCEMENT OF ISO-VIA RELIABILITY | July 2017 | June 2019 | Allow | 23 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 14581472 | FINFET BASED ZRAM WITH CONVEX CHANNEL REGION | December 2014 | April 2019 | Allow | 52 | 6 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14042991 | METHOD FOR PRODUCING A MICRO-LED MATRIX, MICRO-LED MATRIX AND USE OF A MICRO-LED MATRIX | October 2013 | December 2018 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 13360245 | PHOTOELECTRIC CONVERSION ELEMENT, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PHOTOELECTRIC CONVERSION ELEMENT, AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS | January 2012 | May 2013 | Allow | 15 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13192608 | DOUBLE-SIDED INTEGRATED CIRCUIT CHIPS | July 2011 | February 2013 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12253753 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CREATING THREE-DIMENSIONAL SPATIAL AUDIO | October 2008 | October 2012 | Allow | 48 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 11640065 | PHASE CHANGE RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY DEVICE WITH TRANSISTOR, AND METHOD FOR FABRICATING A MEMORY DEVICE | December 2006 | January 2012 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MIYOSHI, JESSE Y.
With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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.
✓ Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner MIYOSHI, JESSE Y works in Art Unit 2898 and has examined 18 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 88.9%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 50 months.
Examiner MIYOSHI, JESSE Y's allowance rate of 88.9% places them in the 71% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by MIYOSHI, JESSE Y receive 3.67 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 94% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues more office actions than most examiners, which may indicate thorough examination or difficulty in reaching agreement with applicants.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by MIYOSHI, JESSE Y is 50 months. This places the examiner in the 7% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -2.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MIYOSHI, JESSE Y. This interview benefit is in the 9% 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, 18.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 19% 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 15.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 19% 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 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 19% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 133.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 96% 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 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 35% 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.