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
74%
+7 pts vs tech center 3700 allowed within 3 years of the first action
Allowance rate
76%
+6 pts vs tech center 3700 range 76% to 77%
Rejections before allowance
1.6
level with tech center 3700
Months to first action
22.5 mo
+1.8 vs tech center 3700
In plain words
With Art unit 3741, 74% of applications were allowed within three years of the first office action, against 67% for tech center 3700. The first action takes 22.5 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 18,356 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 3700. 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 3700.
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 3700, 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 3700.
What works
Allowance by strategy used
Allowance rate among decided cases where each move was used at least once, against tech center 3700.
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 3700.
Who files here
Assignees and firms with the most applications
How often each one was allowed with this unit.
Landscape
Examiners across tech center 3700
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ehud Gartenberg | 77 | 1% | P98 Harder than peers |
| Marcos O Diaz | 58 | 22% | P94 Harder than peers |
| Jingchen Liu | 162 | 65% | P92 Harder than peers |
| Thomas P Burke | 487 | 46% | P92 Harder than peers |
| Roberto Toshiharu Igue | 98 | 62% | P87 Harder than peers |
| Jared Wayne Pike | 112 | 39% | P87 Harder than peers |
| Michael B Mantyla | 196 | 55% | P82 Harder than peers |
| Edwin G Kang | 449 | 66% | P79 Harder than peers |
| Jacek Lisowski | 304 | 70% | P76 Harder than peers |
| Stephanie Sebasco Cheng | 408 | 63% | P74 Typical for peers |
| Henry Ng | 310 | 67% | P70 Typical for peers |
| Arun Goyal | 674 | 64% | P66 Typical for peers |
| James P McGlynn | 81 | 62% | P66 Typical for peers |
| Marionelie Frazer-Vicenty | 3 | 33% | P64 |
| Tae Jun Kim | 791 | 65% | P57 Typical for peers |
| William Lee Breazeal | 538 | 71% | P57 Typical for peers |
| Lorne Edward Meade | 754 | 57% | P57 Typical for peers |
| Marc J Amar | 510 | 78% | P55 Typical for peers |
| Sean V Meiller | 226 | 76% | P54 Typical for peers |
| Karthik Subramanian | 68 | 59% | P52 Typical for peers |
| Eric W Linderman | 208 | 78% | P50 Typical for peers |
| Jason H Duger | 588 | 74% | P47 Typical for peers |
| Alyson Joan Harrington | 275 | 76% | P45 Typical for peers |
| Alain Chau | 692 | 81% | P41 Typical for peers |
| Gerald Luther Sung | 887 | 81% | P40 Typical for peers |
| Kyle Robert Thomas | 492 | 77% | P38 Typical for peers |
| Carlos A Rivera | 682 | 79% | P37 Typical for peers |
| Young Eun Choi | 48 | 79% | P36 Typical for peers |
| Stefan Ibroni | 98 | 78% | P34 Typical for peers |
| Steven M Sutherland | 1,218 | 83% | P32 Typical for peers |
| Scott J Walthour | 827 | 81% | P32 Typical for peers |
| Thuyhang Ngoc Nguyen | 486 | 85% | P31 Typical for peers |
| Christopher M Adams | 9 | 67% | P31 |
| Katheryn A Malatek | 486 | 87% | P30 Typical for peers |
| Andrew H Nguyen | 984 | 79% | P30 Typical for peers |
| Rene D Ford | 582 | 82% | P28 Typical for peers |
| Filippo C. Manfredi | 29 | 76% | P26 |
| Vikansha S Dwivedi | 213 | 85% | P25 Easier than peers |
| Craig Sang Kim | 999 | 88% | P24 Easier than peers |
| Rodolphe Andre Chabreyrie | 391 | 88% | P23 Easier than peers |
| Colin J Paulauskas | 30 | 77% | P23 Easier than peers |
| David Olynick | 392 | 83% | P17 Easier than peers |
| Todd Nathaniel Jordan | 111 | 82% | P14 Easier than peers |
| Phutthiwat Wongwian | 698 | 86% | P12 Easier than peers |
| William H Rodriguez | 940 | 92% | P11 Easier than peers |
| Nicholas J Vaccaro | 2 | 50% | P8 |
| Louis J Casaregola | 96 | 88% | P6 Easier than peers |
| Nalini Emily Selladurai | 1 | 100% | P5 |
| Nicholas Peter T Karnezos | 7 | 100% | P5 |
| Salvatore C Pais | 1 | 100% | P5 |
| Edward Gerard Lent | 1 | 100% | P5 |
| Daniel A Arble | 2 | 100% | P5 |
| Alexandru A. Herescu | 3 | 100% | P2 |