PATLY.AIExaminer difficulty
How examiners in this art unit compare
The spread of examiners on each measure. Click a bar to see who is in it.
3-year grant rate
40%
−16 pts vs tech center 1600 allowed within 3 years of the first action
Allowance rate
48%
−13 pts vs tech center 1600 range 47% to 49%
Rejections before allowance
2.3
+0.6 vs tech center 1600
Months to first action
19.2 mo
+2.5 vs tech center 1600
In plain words
With Art unit 1653, 40% of applications were allowed within three years of the first office action, against 56% for tech center 1600. The first action takes 19.2 months on average.
Timeline
Applications by filing year: drag across the years to study a period
Allowed in green, abandoned in red, pending in grey. The figures above and every chart that can be recomputed by filing year follow the span you pick; the rest are marked all years.
Ask the record
Questions practitioners ask, answered from 10,596 applications
Grant rate from the first action
Share allowed, by months after the first office action
The gold line is this record and the blue line is tech center 1600. The marker is the three-year grant rate.
Outcome simulator
Where you are, what you do next, and the odds that follow
A model of this record’s own transitions: each examiner action, the response to it, and what came next. Thin data borrows from tech center 1600.
Prosecution paths
How prosecution actually unfolds
Every application’s sequence of examiner actions, from the first action to the outcome. Hover a band for the count.
Compared with peers
Against the art unit, the tech center and the USPTO
The same figures for this record, tech center 1600, the tech center and the whole office.
Allowance over time
How fast applications are allowed, or abandoned
Share allowed (gold) and abandoned (red) by month since filing, with pending cases counted only while they are pending.
Rejection fingerprint
What gets rejected, by statute
Share of office actions raising each ground; blue is tech center 1600.
What works
Allowance by strategy used
Allowance rate among decided cases where each move was used at least once, against tech center 1600.
Interviews
Does an interview help?
Allowance with and without an examiner interview, and how often interviews happen.
Odds by round
Chance the next action is an allowance
After the first, second and later rejections.
Response clock
Days from a response to the next action
How long the examiner takes to act once you have answered.
Quarter-end timing
When allowances land in the fiscal quarter
Allowances by week of the USPTO fiscal quarter. An even spread would put 15% in the last two weeks.
Appeals
What happens on appeal
Appeals filed, briefs, examiner’s answers, and how the Board decided.
Trend
Allowance rate by filing year
Is it getting easier or harder? Gold is this record, blue is tech center 1600.
Who files here
Assignees and firms with the most applications
How often each one was allowed with this unit.
Landscape
Examiners across tech center 1600
Each dot is an examiner: allowance rate across, rejections before allowance down, size by caseload. Click one to open it.
Examiners
Every examiner in the unit, ranked by difficulty
| Examiner | Applications | Allowance rate | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stephanie A N McNeil | 358 | 11% | P98 Harder than peers |
| Emmalee Rae Williams | 63 | 0% | P93 Harder than peers |
| Asher French Anderson | 13 | 0% | P93 |
| Enusha Karunasena | 71 | 0% | P93 Harder than peers |
| Shannon L Janssen | 179 | 15% | P82 Harder than peers |
| Paul D Pyla | 364 | 26% | P80 Harder than peers |
| Natalie Nmn Iannuzo | 134 | 9% | P79 Harder than peers |
| Sheridan R Macauley | 270 | 17% | P79 Harder than peers |
| Sharmila Gollamudi Landau | 230 | 11% | P59 Typical for peers |
| Sandra Zingarelli | 92 | 5% | P57 Typical for peers |
| Lioubov G Korotchkina | 144 | 27% | P56 Typical for peers |
| Qing Xu | 364 | 48% | P55 Typical for peers |
| Paul C Martin | 984 | 40% | P52 Typical for peers |
| Nghi V Nguyen | 610 | 52% | P51 Typical for peers |
| Emily Fay Eix | 146 | 28% | P50 Typical for peers |
| Natalie M Moss | 690 | 31% | P48 Typical for peers |
| Lora E Barnhart Driscoll | 300 | 29% | P47 Typical for peers |
| Sean C Barron | 834 | 51% | P41 Typical for peers |
| Vera Afremova | 955 | 47% | P40 Typical for peers |
| Erin M Bowers | 712 | 52% | P38 Typical for peers |
| Damon Bowe | 76 | 26% | P36 Typical for peers |
| Stephen M Chong | 206 | 53% | P28 Typical for peers |
| Jennifer M.h. Tichy | 786 | 62% | P24 Easier than peers |
| Ashley Taylor White | 97 | 30% | P14 Easier than peers |
| Susan Marie Hanley | 757 | 64% | P14 Easier than peers |
| Allison M Fox | 841 | 69% | P13 Easier than peers |
| Kevin Greenwood | 4 | 25% | P9 |
| Bin Shen | 939 | 71% | P9 Easier than peers |
| Douglas F White | 326 | 68% | P9 Easier than peers |