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%
+11 pts vs tech center 3700 allowed within 3 years of the first action
Allowance rate
79%
+9 pts vs tech center 3700 range 79% to 79%
Rejections before allowance
1.4
−0.3 vs tech center 3700
Months to first action
17.1 mo
−3.6 vs tech center 3700
In plain words
With Art unit 3753, 78% of applications were allowed within three years of the first office action, against 67% for tech center 3700. The first action takes 17.1 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 38,766 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eric Nolan Sporer | 14 | 0% | P99 |
| Robin Octavia Evans | 17 | 0% | P99 |
| Angelisa Hicks | 711 | 65% | P90 Harder than peers |
| Jonathan J Waddy | 770 | 72% | P87 Harder than peers |
| James R Hakomaki | 328 | 67% | P86 Harder than peers |
| Craig James Price | 1,114 | 71% | P84 Harder than peers |
| Christopher D Pilling | 13 | 15% | P84 |
| Andrew J Rost | 851 | 70% | P84 Harder than peers |
| Nicole Gardner | 591 | 71% | P82 Harder than peers |
| Seth Wentworth Mackay-Smith | 498 | 69% | P81 Harder than peers |
| Stephen M Hepperle | 89 | 46% | P78 Harder than peers |
| Christopher D Ballman | 597 | 79% | P77 Harder than peers |
| Richard Kyle Durden | 497 | 62% | P77 Harder than peers |
| Kevin F Murphy | 1,139 | 70% | P75 Harder than peers |
| Atif H Chaudry | 1,109 | 74% | P75 Harder than peers |
| Haotian Lu | 89 | 57% | P71 Typical for peers |
| Daphne Marie Barry | 885 | 79% | P69 Typical for peers |
| Time O Aigbe | 55 | 55% | P68 Typical for peers |
| Daniel P Donegan | 75 | 67% | P68 Typical for peers |
| Josephine Trinidad-Borges | 130 | 64% | P65 Typical for peers |
| Ian G Paquette | 483 | 75% | P61 Typical for peers |
| Paul J Gray | 688 | 80% | P61 Typical for peers |
| Stephanie Alexandra Shrieves | 311 | 77% | P61 Typical for peers |
| Hailey Kyung Ae Do | 860 | 77% | P59 Typical for peers |
| Craig M Schneider | 451 | 64% | P58 Typical for peers |
| Matthew William Jellett | 1,267 | 81% | P56 Typical for peers |
| Jeremy S Baskin | 15 | 47% | P56 |
| Kevin E Lynn | 68 | 74% | P55 Typical for peers |
| Kelsey E Cary | 731 | 78% | P53 Typical for peers |
| William M McCalister | 1,233 | 76% | P50 Typical for peers |
| Michael Robert Reid | 897 | 81% | P50 Typical for peers |
| Daniel R Edelbrock | 17 | 59% | P49 |
| Joseph P Heil | 6 | 67% | P49 |
| Marina Annette Tietjen | 1,099 | 78% | P49 Typical for peers |
| Cloud K Lee | 6 | 67% | P49 |
| Seth J Faulb | 83 | 75% | P48 Typical for peers |
| Jessica Marie Cahill | 986 | 80% | P48 Typical for peers |
| John A Rivell | 389 | 72% | P45 Typical for peers |
| John K Fristoe Jr | 447 | 68% | P43 Typical for peers |
| Patrick C Williams | 676 | 83% | P41 Typical for peers |
| David Colon Morales | 908 | 82% | P36 Typical for peers |
| Reinaldo Sanchez-Medina | 894 | 82% | P34 Typical for peers |
| John C Fox | 825 | 76% | P34 Typical for peers |
| Frederick D Soski | 463 | 79% | P32 Typical for peers |
| Robert K Arundale | 1,070 | 80% | P32 Typical for peers |
| Umashankar Venkatesan | 1,080 | 83% | P31 Typical for peers |
| Christopher M Afful | 446 | 81% | P31 Typical for peers |
| David R Deal | 695 | 85% | P31 Typical for peers |
| Phyllis M Nichols | 1,093 | 83% | P30 Typical for peers |
| Eric S Keasel | 783 | 83% | P28 Typical for peers |
| Timothy Lewis Maust | 1,673 | 84% | P27 Typical for peers |
| Mer Arnel S Manahan | 2 | 100% | P26 |
| Timothy Patrick Kelly | 898 | 81% | P24 Easier than peers |
| Jason Karol Niesz | 1,297 | 83% | P21 Easier than peers |
| Minh Q Le | 1,119 | 86% | P16 Easier than peers |
| Kevin L Lee | 1,346 | 89% | P16 Easier than peers |
| Kevin R Barss | 877 | 89% | P16 Easier than peers |
| Patrick F Brinson | 1,648 | 86% | P15 Easier than peers |
| Nicolas Allen Arnett | 1,331 | 85% | P13 Easier than peers |
| Joshua Dennis Leary | 47 | 91% | P12 Easier than peers |
| Stephen Michael Gravini | 2,256 | 84% | P12 Easier than peers |
| John Bastianelli | 1,482 | 84% | P9 Easier than peers |
| Faisal Ahmed | 26 | 100% | P8 |
| Ramesh Krishnamurthy | 4 | 75% | P5 |