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
83%
+2 pts vs tech center 2600 allowed within 3 years of the first action
Allowance rate
85%
+2 pts vs tech center 2600 range 84% to 85%
Rejections before allowance
1.3
−0.1 vs tech center 2600
Months to first action
18.2 mo
+1.4 vs tech center 2600
In plain words
With Art unit 2662, 83% of applications were allowed within three years of the first office action, against 81% for tech center 2600. The first action takes 18.2 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 11,538 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 2600. 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 2600.
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 2600, 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 2600.
What works
Allowance by strategy used
Allowance rate among decided cases where each move was used at least once, against tech center 2600.
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 2600.
Who files here
Assignees and firms with the most applications
How often each one was allowed with this unit.
Landscape
Examiners across tech center 2600
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emma Rose Goebel | 118 | 55% | P97 Harder than peers |
| Mehrazul Nmn Islam | 124 | 57% | P97 Harder than peers |
| Yih-Sien Kao | 297 | 72% | P88 Harder than peers |
| Denise G Alfonso | 164 | 78% | P87 Harder than peers |
| Jianxun Yang | 767 | 75% | P86 Harder than peers |
| Morgan Ruth Berasley | 2 | 50% | P85 |
| Sorie Ibrahim Koroma | 32 | 50% | P85 Harder than peers |
| Katrina R Fujita | 814 | 78% | P76 Harder than peers |
| Usman A Khan | 1,017 | 80% | P67 Typical for peers |
| Daniella Marie Diguglielmo | 197 | 80% | P64 Typical for peers |
| Andrew Steven Budisalich | 121 | 82% | P63 Typical for peers |
| Caroline Tabancay Duffy | 139 | 81% | P62 Typical for peers |
| David S Perlman | 684 | 84% | P52 Typical for peers |
| Cynthia Calderon | 911 | 83% | P51 Typical for peers |
| Tuan H Le | 503 | 83% | P46 Typical for peers |
| Jaspreet Kaur | 73 | 83% | P44 Typical for peers |
| Tahmina N Ansari | 975 | 87% | P42 Typical for peers |
| Abdelaaziz Tissire | 878 | 85% | P40 Typical for peers |
| Timothy J Henn | 1,130 | 89% | P33 Typical for peers |
| James M Hannett | 1,339 | 87% | P33 Typical for peers |
| Gary C Vieaux | 994 | 86% | P30 Typical for peers |
| Nicholas G Giles | 1,107 | 87% | P29 Typical for peers |
| Dalen O Goodson | 10 | 80% | P26 |
| Joel W Fosselman | 1,210 | 88% | P25 Easier than peers |
| Carol Wang Chan | 655 | 89% | P22 Easier than peers |
| Annie Pham | 33 | 91% | P19 Easier than peers |
| Siamak Harandi | 1,007 | 93% | P15 Easier than peers |
| Pritham David Prabhakher | 1,249 | 89% | P15 Easier than peers |
| Niranjini Chintalapoodi | 1 | 100% | P8 |
| Justin Montgomery Oakes | 40 | 100% | P8 Easier than peers |
| Guy C Kouaho | 2 | 100% | P3 |
| Mychal James Bradley Gibbens | 2 | 100% | P3 |
| Giang Thi Han Nguyen | 3 | 100% | P2 |
| Helen Deng Shi | 3 | 100% | P2 |