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%
level with tech center 2800 allowed within 3 years of the first action
Allowance rate
84%
level with tech center 2800 range 84% to 85%
Rejections before allowance
1.2
level with tech center 2800
Months to first action
16.2 mo
−0.9 vs tech center 2800
In plain words
With Art unit 2847, 83% of applications were allowed within three years of the first office action, against 83% for tech center 2800. The first action takes 16.2 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 20,604 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 2800. 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 2800.
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 2800, 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 2800.
What works
Allowance by strategy used
Allowance rate among decided cases where each move was used at least once, against tech center 2800.
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 2800.
Who files here
Assignees and firms with the most applications
How often each one was allowed with this unit.
Landscape
Examiners across tech center 2800
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lien C Bui | 1 | 0% | P100 |
| Paul P McGee III | 84 | 55% | P96 Harder than peers |
| Paresh H Paghadal | 839 | 62% | P94 Harder than peers |
| Chau N Nguyen | 1,708 | 68% | P94 Harder than peers |
| Roshn K Varghese | 897 | 68% | P93 Harder than peers |
| Steven T Sawyer | 1,206 | 71% | P91 Harder than peers |
| Ishwarbhai B Patel | 1,107 | 65% | P91 Harder than peers |
| Rhadames J Alonzo Miller | 728 | 73% | P81 Harder than peers |
| Tremesha Willis Burns | 1,205 | 81% | P81 Harder than peers |
| Sidi Mohamed Maiga | 106 | 79% | P77 Harder than peers |
| Stanley Tso | 847 | 82% | P72 Typical for peers |
| Xiaoliang Chen | 1,767 | 80% | P67 Typical for peers |
| William H Mayo III | 1,588 | 80% | P66 Typical for peers |
| Guillermo J Egoavil | 759 | 90% | P60 Typical for peers |
| Aditya Sharma | 93 | 81% | P55 Typical for peers |
| Hoa Cao Nguyen | 1,152 | 83% | P51 Typical for peers |
| Muhammed Azam | 533 | 88% | P46 Typical for peers |
| Krystal Robinson | 1,057 | 89% | P45 Typical for peers |
| Andargie M Aychillhum | 1,565 | 88% | P41 Typical for peers |
| Amol H Patel | 915 | 88% | P40 Typical for peers |
| Hung V Ngo | 1,504 | 87% | P39 Typical for peers |
| John Brendan Freal | 274 | 93% | P33 Typical for peers |
| Paramita Ghosh | 38 | 97% | P31 Typical for peers |
| Esther Ngun Hlei Ma Lian | 59 | 100% | P28 Typical for peers |
| Michael F McAllister | 1,040 | 89% | P27 Typical for peers |
| Jeremy C Norris | 1,489 | 92% | P25 Easier than peers |
| Charles M Pizzuto | 440 | 91% | P20 Easier than peers |
| Harmandeep Singh | 3 | 100% | P18 |
| Obaidul Nmn Gani | 32 | 100% | P15 Easier than peers |
| Lisa S Lea Edmonds | 1,570 | 93% | P14 Easier than peers |
| Sherman Ng | 1,556 | 90% | P14 Easier than peers |
| Timothy Joseph Torres | 36 | 100% | P6 Easier than peers |
| Abigail Marie Thayer | 22 | 100% | P3 |