Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18817077 | VOLUMETRIC SCULPTING USING DUAL CONTOURING | August 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18260690 | BASE STATION AND COMMUNICATION METHOD | July 2023 | July 2025 | Allow | 24 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18340851 | CELL SELECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS | June 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18083263 | METHODS AND APPARATUS TO MONITOR MEDIA PRESENTATIONS | December 2022 | February 2024 | Allow | 14 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17618090 | LOSSLESS MODE FOR VERSATILE VIDEO CODING | December 2021 | October 2023 | Allow | 22 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15485351 | COMMENT-PROVIDED VIDEO GENERATING APPARATUS AND COMMENT-PROVIDED VIDEO GENERATING METHOD | April 2017 | March 2018 | Allow | 12 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15437317 | DIGITAL MULTIMEDIA RECORDER WITH FUNCTIONALITY FOLLOWING LOSS OF PROVIDER NETWORK SERVICE | February 2017 | November 2018 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15411029 | Notification of Media Content of Interest | January 2017 | July 2018 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15387103 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SELECTING, CAPTURING, AND DISTRIBUTING CUSTOMIZED EVENT RECORDINGS | December 2016 | June 2018 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15096540 | VIDEO ENCODING METHOD AND APPARATUS AND VIDEO DECODING METHOD AND APPARATUS USING INTRA BLOCK COPY PREDICTION | April 2016 | July 2018 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14867163 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR DISPLAYING CONTENT | September 2015 | April 2017 | Allow | 18 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14679678 | INTELLIGENT DEVICE SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTION OF DIGITAL SIGNALS ON A WIDEBAND SIGNAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM | April 2015 | July 2018 | Allow | 39 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 14395400 | METHOD OF CODING AND DECODING INTEGRAL IMAGES, A DEVICE FOR CODING AND DECODING INTEGRAL IMAGES, AND CORRESPONDING COMPUTER PROGRAMS | October 2014 | October 2017 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14259204 | Programmatically Determining When Credits Appear During a Video in Order to Provide Supplemental Information | April 2014 | March 2017 | Allow | 35 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14227379 | COMMENT-PROVIDED VIDEO GENERATING APPARATUS AND COMMENT-PROVIDED VIDEO GENERATING METHOD | March 2014 | February 2017 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14130600 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MULTIPLEXING AND DEMULTIPLEXING VIDEO DATA TO IDENTIFY REPRODUCING STATE OF VIDEO DATA | January 2014 | April 2017 | Allow | 39 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13194834 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTING A WIRELESS TELEVISION SYSTEM | July 2011 | October 2016 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 12257759 | PROGRAM GUIDE PROVIDING SYSTEM, PROGRAM GUIDE PROVIDING APPARATUS, PROGRAM GUIDE PROVIDING METHOD, AND PROGRAM GUIDE PROVIDING PROGRAM | October 2008 | March 2012 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12256567 | PRESENTING A CONTINUOUS PROGRAMMING SEQUENCE AT A CLIENT TERMINAL | October 2008 | May 2012 | Allow | 42 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12254466 | BROADCAST RECEIVING APPARATUS, BROADCAST RECEIVING METHOD AND BROADCAST RECEIVING SYSTEM | October 2008 | September 2009 | Allow | 10 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 11458794 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ANALYZING CABLE TELEVISION SIGNAL LEAK INFORMATION | July 2006 | January 2011 | Allow | 54 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 10564058 | INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAM | January 2006 | January 2012 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10427797 | RECORDING RESOURCES INDICATORS | May 2003 | August 2009 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner HANCE, ROBERT J works in Art Unit 3992 and has examined 19 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 35 months.
Examiner HANCE, ROBERT J'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.
On average, applications examined by HANCE, ROBERT J receive 2.68 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 79% 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 HANCE, ROBERT J is 35 months. This places the examiner in the 41% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HANCE, ROBERT J. This interview benefit is in the 17% 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, 31.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 65% 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 22.2% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 29% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 40.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 31% 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's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 5.3% of allowed cases (in the 86% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 52% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions more often than average when claims are allowable but formal matters remain (MPEP § 714.14).
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.