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
78%
+12 pts vs tech center 3700 allowed within 3 years of the first action
Allowance rate
80%
+9 pts vs tech center 3700 range 79% to 80%
Rejections before allowance
1.4
−0.3 vs tech center 3700
Months to first action
23.3 mo
+2.6 vs tech center 3700
In plain words
With Art unit 3745, 78% of applications were allowed within three years of the first office action, against 67% for tech center 3700. The first action takes 23.3 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 40,305 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| David E Mann | 1 | 0% | P100 |
| Daniel P Tapolcai | 1 | 0% | P100 |
| Nercy L Moreno-Nerey | 2 | 50% | P97 |
| Lester W Forsythe Jr | 4 | 25% | P96 |
| Sean Jerrard Younger | 382 | 57% | P95 Harder than peers |
| Edward K Look | 130 | 7% | P94 Harder than peers |
| Jesse M Prager | 765 | 66% | P91 Harder than peers |
| Timothy J Teicher | 10 | 20% | P90 |
| Alexander A White | 234 | 65% | P89 Harder than peers |
| Georgi Korobanov | 4 | 25% | P88 |
| Michael M Quandt | 580 | 64% | P87 Harder than peers |
| Wayne A Lambert | 632 | 65% | P87 Harder than peers |
| Justin A Pruitt | 344 | 64% | P85 Harder than peers |
| Aye Su Mon Htay | 430 | 68% | P85 Harder than peers |
| Julian B Getachew | 200 | 74% | P84 Harder than peers |
| Christopher M Kemp | 3 | 33% | P82 |
| Michael K. Reitz | 329 | 71% | P82 Harder than peers |
| Joe Robert Gonzalez Jr | 3 | 33% | P82 |
| Arthur Paul Golik | 161 | 70% | P81 Harder than peers |
| Frank D Lopez | 1,016 | 68% | P79 Harder than peers |
| Jason Mikus | 239 | 69% | P78 Harder than peers |
| Adam Wayne Brown | 522 | 70% | P77 Harder than peers |
| Nathaniel Edward Wiehe | 287 | 53% | P77 Harder than peers |
| Justin D Seabe | 927 | 72% | P74 Typical for peers |
| Ryan H Ellis | 322 | 63% | P73 Typical for peers |
| Kayla M McCaffrey | 495 | 77% | P71 Typical for peers |
| Christopher Ryan Legendre | 990 | 77% | P71 Typical for peers |
| Hakeem M Abdellaoui | 72 | 69% | P70 Typical for peers |
| Richard C Drake | 217 | 74% | P69 Typical for peers |
| Christopher M Verdier | 1,031 | 74% | P69 Typical for peers |
| Cameron A Corday | 439 | 80% | P66 Typical for peers |
| Jeffrey A Brownson | 153 | 71% | P66 Typical for peers |
| Michael L Sehn | 830 | 84% | P65 Typical for peers |
| Jason A Fountain | 423 | 84% | P64 Typical for peers |
| Matthew Wiblin | 790 | 77% | P64 Typical for peers |
| Eric A Lange | 250 | 80% | P62 Typical for peers |
| Brian P Wolcott | 743 | 79% | P61 Typical for peers |
| Dustin T Nguyen | 627 | 75% | P61 Typical for peers |
| Joshua R Beebe | 700 | 71% | P58 Typical for peers |
| Elton K Wong | 600 | 81% | P57 Typical for peers |
| Aaron H Jagoda | 66 | 73% | P56 Typical for peers |
| Wesley Le Fisher | 272 | 83% | P55 Typical for peers |
| Jason Gregory Davis | 749 | 76% | P53 Typical for peers |
| Maranatha Boardman | 76 | 78% | P52 Typical for peers |
| Juan G Flores | 928 | 80% | P52 Typical for peers |
| Danielle M Christensen | 769 | 82% | P51 Typical for peers |
| John S Hunter | 498 | 84% | P51 Typical for peers |
| William T Vadala | 5 | 60% | P47 |
| Christopher J Hargitt | 123 | 80% | P46 Typical for peers |
| Peter T Hrubiec | 61 | 80% | P44 Typical for peers |
| Logan M Kraft | 549 | 74% | P43 Typical for peers |
| Brian O Peters | 911 | 78% | P42 Typical for peers |
| Andrew Thanh Bui | 342 | 83% | P41 Typical for peers |
| Andrew James Marien | 409 | 83% | P41 Typical for peers |
| Dwayne J White | 592 | 70% | P41 Typical for peers |
| Narcrisha S Norman | 3 | 67% | P37 |
| Maxime M Adjagbe | 864 | 86% | P36 Typical for peers |
| Eric J Zamora Alvarez | 657 | 90% | P35 Typical for peers |
| Behnoush Haghighian | 629 | 81% | P34 Typical for peers |
| Liam J McDowell | 415 | 78% | P34 Typical for peers |
| Richard A Edgar | 1,262 | 79% | P33 Typical for peers |
| Aaron Robert Eastman | 1,078 | 83% | P33 Typical for peers |
| Jason Todd Newton | 1,101 | 85% | P31 Typical for peers |
| Ryan C Clark | 389 | 89% | P31 Typical for peers |
| Hoon Choi | 40 | 75% | P31 Typical for peers |
| Woody A Lee Jr | 843 | 86% | P30 Typical for peers |
| Andrew Coleman Knopp | 62 | 81% | P29 Typical for peers |
| Abiy Teka | 894 | 87% | P26 Typical for peers |
| Jackson N Gillenwaters | 296 | 85% | P24 Easier than peers |
| William G Grigos | 238 | 81% | P23 Easier than peers |
| Topaz L Elliott | 637 | 85% | P21 Easier than peers |
| Theodore C Ribadeneyra | 577 | 91% | P19 Easier than peers |
| Andrew Magd | 2 | 100% | P18 |
| Qi Gan | 8 | 75% | P17 |
| Brian Christopher Delrue | 687 | 88% | P16 Easier than peers |
| Sabbir Hasan | 587 | 89% | P15 Easier than peers |
| Adam Ray Benson | 16 | 88% | P14 |
| Daniel S. Collins | 882 | 88% | P14 Easier than peers |
| Eldon T Brockman | 1,043 | 88% | P13 Easier than peers |
| Jose M Siguenza Jr. | 5 | 80% | P11 |
| Ninh H Nguyen | 1,297 | 89% | P11 Easier than peers |
| Michael S Leslie | 1,643 | 86% | P9 Easier than peers |
| Emily Sarah Adelman | 7 | 100% | P8 |
| Latoia L Sudler | 6 | 100% | P8 |
| David Whittaker | 18 | 100% | P7 |
| Thomas E Lazo | 2,001 | 90% | P7 Easier than peers |
| Alonzo N Coleman | 4 | 100% | P6 |
| Zubair Eltaf | 2 | 100% | P6 |
| Igor Kershteyn | 1,688 | 93% | P4 Easier than peers |
| Muhammed K Raji | 2 | 100% | P2 |
| Christopher C Williams | 6 | 100% | P1 |