Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18780340 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A STUD PLATE CONNECTOR END EFFECTOR | July 2024 | January 2026 | Abandon | 17 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 18403223 | RIGHT-OF-WAY-BASED SEMANTIC COVERAGE AND AUTOMATIC LABELING FOR TRAJECTORY GENERATION IN AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS | January 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 24 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18360035 | AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEM | July 2023 | February 2026 | Abandon | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18224846 | Control Mode Selection And Transitions | July 2023 | December 2025 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18338238 | ROBOTIC VEHICLE DECONTAMINATOR | June 2023 | December 2025 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18044242 | FINE-GRAINED INDUSTRIAL ROBOTIC ASSEMBLIES | March 2023 | May 2025 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18088201 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A STUD PLATE CONNECTOR END EFFECTOR | December 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18086091 | WORK VEHICLE | December 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18078052 | VEHICLE AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF | December 2022 | July 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18000983 | ROBOT CONTROL DEVICE | December 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17982689 | ROBOT CONTROL SYSTEM, ROBOT CONTROL METHOD, AND PROGRAM | November 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17953808 | DRIVER ASSISTANCE SYSTEM FOR A HARVESTER WITH A BELT CUTTER | September 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17914509 | METHOD FOR CONTROLLING AN AT LEAST PARTIALLY AUTONOMOUSLY DRIVING EGO VEHICLE | September 2022 | March 2026 | Abandon | 42 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17952726 | ROBOT PATH PLANNING APPARATUS AND METHOD THEREOF | September 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17938918 | Working Machine | September 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 40 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17903938 | MARINE PROPULSION SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WAKE CONTROL | September 2022 | April 2025 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17801540 | DRIVING ASSISTANCE DEVICE AND DRIVING ASSISTANCE METHOD | August 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17798463 | CONTROL DEVICE, CONTROL METHOD, AND PROGRAM | August 2022 | January 2025 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17817980 | Method for Simultaneous Robot Kinematic and Hand-Eye Calibration | August 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17722690 | REMOTE ASSISTANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, REMOTE ASSISTANCE MANAGEMENT METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | April 2022 | September 2025 | Abandon | 41 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17766475 | ROBOT DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE SAME | April 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17709506 | DISTRIBUTED SYSTEM AND DATA PROCESSING METHOD | March 2022 | July 2024 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17562985 | STEPPING DOWN TRAJECTORY PLANNING METHOD, ROBOT USING THE SAME, AND COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | December 2021 | September 2024 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17519875 | METHOD OF AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING VEHICLE | November 2021 | February 2025 | Allow | 40 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17385231 | AIRCRAFT SYSTEM | July 2021 | November 2025 | Allow | 51 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17368752 | Augmented Reality System and Method for Conveying To a Human Operator Information Associated With Human-Imperceptible Indicia within an Operating Environment of a Robot | July 2021 | January 2026 | Allow | 54 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 17361569 | CONTROL DEVICE OF ROBOT CLEANER | June 2021 | February 2025 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17353818 | MOBILE ROBOT AND CLIFF DETECTION METHOD THEREOF | June 2021 | July 2024 | Allow | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17353973 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLING A WORK VEHICLE DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF AN EARTHMOVING OPERATION | June 2021 | February 2025 | Abandon | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17351519 | LONGITUDINAL TRIM CONTROL MOVEMENT DURING TAKEOFF ROTATION | June 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 52 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17340870 | Systems and Methods for Dynamic Object Removal from Three-Dimensional Data | June 2021 | March 2025 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17335696 | SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND VEHICLES FOR PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION AND HEALTH MONITORING | June 2021 | February 2026 | Abandon | 57 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17327182 | METHOD FOR IDENTIFICATION AND RECOGNITION OF AIRCRAFT TAKE-OFF AND LANDING RUNWAY BASED ON PSPNET NETWORK | May 2021 | October 2024 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16700698 | NAVIGATION SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR GENERATING ENHANCED SEARCH RESULTS | December 2019 | November 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner DANG, TRANG THANH.
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, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner DANG, TRANG THANH works in Art Unit 3656 and has examined 12 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 66.7%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 45 months.
Examiner DANG, TRANG THANH's allowance rate of 66.7% places them in the 28% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by DANG, TRANG THANH receive 3.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 87% 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 DANG, TRANG THANH is 45 months. This places the examiner in the 13% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +22.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by DANG, TRANG THANH. This interview benefit is in the 68% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 31.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 64% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 16.7% 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 18% 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, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 6% 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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 36% 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 39% 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.