USPTO Examiner JIN GEORGE C - Art Unit 3799

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17128822VEHICLE CONTROL DATA GENERATION METHOD, VEHICLE CONTROLLER, VEHICLE CONTROL SYSTEM, VEHICLE LEARNING DEVICE, VEHICLE CONTROL DATA GENERATION DEVICE, AND MEMORY MEDIUMDecember 2020March 2023Allow2700NoNo
15797746INTAKE MANIFOLDOctober 2017November 2018Allow1311YesNo
15696456Vehicle Control DeviceSeptember 2017May 2018Allow800NoNo
15259781FUEL SUPPLY APPARATUS FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINESeptember 2016September 2017Allow1200NoNo
15248924ENGINE DEVICEAugust 2016June 2018Allow2120NoNo
15105527EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION APPARATUS AND ENGINE SYSTEM INCLUDING SUCH EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION APPARATUSJune 2016April 2018Allow2220NoNo
15071845FUEL SUPPLY DEVICE OF MOTORCYCLEMarch 2016November 2018Allow3230YesNo
15066921ENGINE SYSTEM HAVING UNKNOWN-FUEL STARTUP STRATEGYMarch 2016November 2017Allow2010NoNo
14669954AUTO STOP ENGINE CONTROL FOR VEHICLESMarch 2015October 2016Allow1900NoNo
14402001INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINESNovember 2014November 2016Allow2400NoNo
14539340AUXILIARY CHAMBER TYPE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINENovember 2014July 2017Allow3211YesNo
14525028DETERMINATION OF THE EFFECTIVE FUEL-AIR RATIO OF A SUPERCHARGED INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE WITH SCAVENGING AIR COMPONENTOctober 2014February 2017Allow2810NoNo
14381745Method for Operating a Fuel Injection System and Fuel Injection System Comprising Fuel Injection Valves with a Piezo Direct-DriveAugust 2014September 2016Allow2510NoNo
14373114CONTROL APPARATUS FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINEJuly 2014December 2016Allow2910YesNo
14233067PLASMA GENERATING DEVICE, AND INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINEApril 2014October 2017Allow4530NoNo
14061959COMBINED FUELING STRATEGY FOR GASEOUS FUELOctober 2013April 2016Allow2900NoNo
14006056INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINEOctober 2013February 2017Allow4120NoNo
14112594INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINEOctober 2013June 2016Allow3210NoNo
13982674PLASMA GENERATION DEVICEOctober 2013January 2016Allow3000NoNo
14046574METHOD FOR OPERATING A FUEL INJECTION SYSTEMOctober 2013May 2016Allow3110NoNo
13982662INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINEOctober 2013December 2015Allow2800NoNo
14004208VEHICLE, AND METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CONTROLLING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINESeptember 2013April 2016Allow3110NoNo
14019191ENGINE CONTROL FOR A LIQUID PETROLEUM GAS FUELED ENGINESeptember 2013April 2016Allow3210NoNo
13885116METHOD FOR OPERATING AN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINEJuly 2013September 2015Allow2800NoNo
13787636FUEL INJECTION METHOD AND COMBUSTION ENGINE WITH EARLY PRE-INJECTIONMarch 2013April 2015Allow2600NoNo
13703907FLUID VALVEFebruary 2013January 2016Allow3720YesNo
13731467FUEL CONTROL SYSTEM AND FUEL CONTROL METHOD OF A GASOLINE DIRECT INJECTION ENGINEDecember 2012February 2015Allow2510NoNo
13670059CONTROL APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINENovember 2012January 2015Allow2610NoNo
13557512Low Temperature Dual Fuel Combustion Utilizing Diesel and Methanol FuelsJuly 2012January 2015Allow3020NoNo

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 JIN, GEORGE C. - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner JIN, GEORGE C. works in Art Unit 3799 and has examined 29 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 28 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner JIN, GEORGE C.'s allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 100% 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 JIN, GEORGE C. receive 0.97 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 6% 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 JIN, GEORGE C. is 28 months. This places the examiner in the 69% 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 JIN, GEORGE C.. This interview benefit is in the 18% 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, 20.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 24% 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 62.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 88% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 47% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 48% 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 54% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions more often than average when claims are allowable but formal matters remain (MPEP § 714.14).

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

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

  • Consider after-final amendments: This examiner frequently enters after-final amendments. If you can clearly overcome rejections with claim amendments, file an after-final amendment before resorting to an RCE.

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.