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
71%
+4 pts vs tech center 3700 allowed within 3 years of the first action
Allowance rate
75%
+5 pts vs tech center 3700 range 75% to 76%
Rejections before allowance
1.8
level with tech center 3700
Months to first action
22.6 mo
+1.9 vs tech center 3700
In plain words
With Art unit 3771, 71% of applications were allowed within three years of the first office action, against 67% for tech center 3700. The first action takes 22.6 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 29,418 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Charles E Norwood | 1 | 0% | P99 |
| Onika Alam | 2 | 0% | P99 |
| Ridwan Chowdhury | 5 | 0% | P99 |
| Kai-Yeu K Chu | 25 | 8% | P94 |
| Jonathan Adam Hollm | 520 | 52% | P93 Harder than peers |
| Sarah A Long | 785 | 64% | P90 Harder than peers |
| Raymond Guanway Chen | 54 | 20% | P90 Harder than peers |
| James Ryan McGinnity | 201 | 60% | P88 Harder than peers |
| Jing Rui Ou | 747 | 58% | P87 Harder than peers |
| Lindsey Michele Bachman | 558 | 50% | P87 Harder than peers |
| Justine Romang Yu | 177 | 12% | P85 Harder than peers |
| Joseph R. Conte III | 7 | 29% | P82 |
| Eric Andrew Liu | 3 | 67% | P79 |
| Christina C Lauer | 737 | 70% | P78 Harder than peers |
| Lauren Dubose | 237 | 59% | P76 Harder than peers |
| Katherine H Mendez | 531 | 67% | P76 Harder than peers |
| Clinton T Ostrup | 307 | 39% | P75 Harder than peers |
| Kathrynn M Lyddane | 212 | 52% | P75 Harder than peers |
| Martin Truyen Ton | 667 | 65% | P74 Typical for peers |
| Raihan R Khandker | 289 | 64% | P74 Typical for peers |
| Christian D Knauss | 515 | 72% | P73 Typical for peers |
| Charles M Wei | 244 | 64% | P73 Typical for peers |
| Kathleen Sonnett Holwerda | 930 | 71% | P72 Typical for peers |
| Tan-Uyen Thi Ho | 95 | 32% | P72 Typical for peers |
| Daniel P Garbus | 4 | 25% | P71 |
| Katherine Marie Rodjom | 627 | 69% | P70 Typical for peers |
| Alexander J Orkin | 1,045 | 68% | P69 Typical for peers |
| Mitchell Brain Hoag | 211 | 71% | P69 Typical for peers |
| Danton D Demille | 66 | 50% | P68 Typical for peers |
| Anh Tieu Dang | 785 | 69% | P67 Typical for peers |
| Brooke N Labranche | 641 | 74% | P66 Typical for peers |
| Zehra Jaffri | 183 | 60% | P66 Typical for peers |
| Michael Jasper Tsai | 501 | 61% | P65 Typical for peers |
| Diane D Yabut | 794 | 69% | P65 Typical for peers |
| Mohammed Sohail Adam | 306 | 69% | P63 Typical for peers |
| Daniel Allen Icet | 47 | 51% | P63 Typical for peers |
| Richard G Louis | 1,097 | 77% | P60 Typical for peers |
| Shaun L David | 694 | 75% | P59 Typical for peers |
| David Paul Stein | 45 | 67% | P58 Typical for peers |
| Thomas M McEvoy | 1,015 | 75% | P56 Typical for peers |
| Serenity A Miller | 182 | 71% | P56 Typical for peers |
| Melanie Ruano Tyson | 833 | 72% | P53 Typical for peers |
| Kankindi Rwego | 595 | 76% | P53 Typical for peers |
| Brigid K Byrd | 418 | 73% | P50 Typical for peers |
| Osama Mohammad Nemer | 161 | 66% | P47 Typical for peers |
| Chima U Igboko | 567 | 81% | P46 Typical for peers |
| Alexis D Amechi | 39 | 56% | P45 Typical for peers |
| Dianne Dornbusch | 809 | 77% | P45 Typical for peers |
| Jocelin C Tanner | 1,174 | 77% | P43 Typical for peers |
| Uyen N Vo | 58 | 72% | P42 Typical for peers |
| Quang D Thanh | 825 | 70% | P41 Typical for peers |
| Robert A Lynch | 963 | 81% | P40 Typical for peers |
| Todd J Scherbel | 943 | 78% | P40 Typical for peers |
| Joshua T Hicks | 13 | 54% | P35 |
| Bridget Elizabeth Rabaglia | 284 | 72% | P34 Typical for peers |
| Erich G. Herbermann | 458 | 85% | P34 Typical for peers |
| Lindsey Rae Rivers | 171 | 71% | P34 Typical for peers |
| Andrew Peter Restaino | 433 | 76% | P34 Typical for peers |
| Tuan Van Nguyen | 1,325 | 85% | P29 Typical for peers |
| Ashley Lauren Fishback | 1,143 | 83% | P25 Easier than peers |
| Rachael L Geiger | 207 | 84% | P24 Easier than peers |
| Julian W Woo | 1,168 | 84% | P23 Easier than peers |
| Katherine Menglin Shi | 1,227 | 80% | P23 Easier than peers |
| Mohamed Gamil Gabr | 746 | 84% | P19 Easier than peers |
| Khoa Tan Le | 121 | 79% | P17 Easier than peers |
| Majid Jamialahmadi | 656 | 81% | P16 Easier than peers |
| Steven O Douglas | 1,648 | 81% | P15 Easier than peers |
| George J Ulsh | 544 | 86% | P15 Easier than peers |
| Nasheha Baset | 28 | 75% | P13 |
| Aman Kumar Mann | 42 | 69% | P12 Easier than peers |
| Alyssa M Keane | 45 | 82% | P12 Easier than peers |
| Phong Son H Dang | 1,070 | 85% | P11 Easier than peers |
| Christopher James Blizzard | 8 | 50% | P9 |
| Ryan J Severson | 1,178 | 89% | P9 Easier than peers |
| Vi X Nguyen | 1,412 | 90% | P7 Easier than peers |
| Paige Alexandria Codrington | 26 | 92% | P6 |
| Lee O Chedister | 9 | 78% | P4 |
| Arwa A Mostafa | 9 | 89% | P2 |
| Regina Vahey | 8 | 100% | P2 |
| Theodore Le Vu | 4 | 100% | P2 |
| Moira E Hayes | 5 | 100% | P1 |
| Teena Kay Mitchell | 1 | 100% | P1 |