USPTO Examiner NEMETH ANDREW T - Art Unit 2953

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
35523471Display screen or portion thereof with animated graphical user interfaceDecember 2024February 2026Allow1400NoNo
35523626Display screen or portion thereof with animated graphical user interfaceJuly 2024February 2026Allow1910NoNo
29938400DISPLAY SCREEN OR PORTION THEREOF WITH ANIMATED GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE HAVING A THREE DIMENSIONAL APPEARANCEApril 2024October 2025Allow1800NoNo
35524759Display screen of an electronic device with graphical user interfaceApril 2024February 2026Allow2200NoNo
29936300Display Screen or Portion Thereof with Transitional Graphical User InterfaceApril 2024December 2025Allow2000NoNo
29935342DISPLAY SCREEN OR PORTION THEREOF WITH GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACEApril 2024September 2025Allow1800NoNo
29935076DISPLAY SCREEN OR PORTION THEREOF WITH GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACEMarch 2024September 2025Allow1800NoNo
29926630DISPLAY SCREEN OR PORTION THEREOF WITH GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACEJanuary 2024November 2025Allow2101NoNo
35523677Display screen with animated graphical user interfaceJanuary 2024February 2026Allow2500NoNo
29890176DISPLAY SCREEN OR PORTION THEREOF WITH GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACEApril 2023September 2025Allow2901NoNo
29827593DISPLAY SCREEN WITH GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE FOR A MOBILE DEVICEFebruary 2022September 2025Allow4301NoNo
29778493ELECTRONIC DEVICE DISPLAY SCREEN WITH A GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACEApril 2021October 2025Allow5410NoNo
29775172DISPLAY SCREEN OR PORTION THEREOF WITH GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACEMarch 2021October 2025Allow5501NoNo
29729530Display Screen with Graphical User Interface for a Real Estate Leasing DashboardMarch 2020October 2025Allow6011YesNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner NEMETH, ANDREW T - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner NEMETH, ANDREW T works in Art Unit 2953 and has examined 3 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 55 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner NEMETH, ANDREW T's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 99% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by NEMETH, ANDREW T receive 0.67 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 4% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by NEMETH, ANDREW T is 55 months. This places the examiner in the 2% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by NEMETH, ANDREW T. This interview benefit is in the 16% 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.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 32% 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 133.3% of allowed cases (in the 100% 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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.