USPTO Examiner TANG BRYANT - Art Unit 3664

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18629806Multi-layer operating system and method for mobile robotsApril 2024June 2024Allow200NoNo
18082173METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ADDRESSING FAILURE IN AN AUTONOMOUS AGENTDecember 2022April 2024Allow1620YesNo
17751550INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD AND INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAMMay 2022May 2024Allow2400NoNo
17741965MOVING OBJECT AND ROUTE DECISION METHOD OF MOVING OBJECTMay 2022August 2024Allow2710NoNo
17655458COLLABORATIVE ROBOT SYSTEM AND ASSEMBLY SET THEREOFMarch 2022February 2024Allow2310NoNo
17671545CONTROL DEVICE, ROBOT SYSTEM, CONTROL METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUMFebruary 2022June 2024Allow2820NoNo
17650252SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR UPDATING VIRTUAL WORKSITEFebruary 2022October 2023Allow2000NoNo
17633458Work Machine Management SystemFebruary 2022February 2024Allow2400NoNo
17648869Object-Based Robot ControlJanuary 2022March 2024Allow2610YesNo
17573932Automation Control Using Stop TrajectoriesJanuary 2022January 2024Allow2410YesNo
17557640METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING ROBOT, AND ROBOTDecember 2021March 2024Allow2720NoNo
17620431AN AIRBORNE VEHICLE ASSISTED LANDING SYSTEM AND METHOD THEREOFDecember 2021May 2024Allow2910NoNo
17545390ROBOT CONTROL SYSTEM, ROBOT CONTROL METHOD, AND PROGRAMDecember 2021December 2023Allow2410NoNo
17524727ROBOT CONTROL SYSTEM, ROBOT CONTROL METHOD, AND CONTROL PROGRAMNovember 2021October 2023Allow2310YesNo
17517896METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR COMPENSATING ROAD LINENovember 2021June 2024Allow3120NoNo
17449137Preventing Regressions in Navigation Determinations Using Logged TrajectoriesSeptember 2021April 2024Allow3110YesNo
17476052Automatic Leveling Control Method for a Four-leg Support Working PlatformSeptember 2021February 2024Allow2900NoNo
17242412COORDINATED BRAKING SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RAIL CARSApril 2021March 2024Allow3410NoNo
17288160Method and Control Unit for Transversely Guiding a Vehicle During Following TravelApril 2021March 2024Allow3420NoNo
17095640METHOD FOR ROBOTIC TRAINING BASED ON RANDOMIZATION OF SURFACE DAMPINGNovember 2020February 2024Allow3910NoNo
16896404INVERSE KINEMATICS OF A SURGICAL ROBOT FOR TELEOPERATION WITH HARDWARE CONSTRAINTSJune 2020February 2024Allow4450YesNo

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 TANG, BRYANT - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner TANG, BRYANT works in Art Unit 3664 and has examined 11 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 31 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner TANG, BRYANT'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 TANG, BRYANT receive 1.55 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 28% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by TANG, BRYANT is 31 months. This places the examiner in the 57% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by TANG, BRYANT. 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 14% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 33.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 50% 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.

Petition Practice

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 Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 38% 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 41% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may come directly without a separate action for formal matters.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

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

    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.