PATLY.AIWhere it stands
How AMC Corporation compares with other companies
Every one with thirty or more decided applications, from the lowest allowance rate to the highest; the dashed line is this company. Switch the measure.
Applications filed10 4 allowed, 5 abandoned, 1 pending
Active in the record2010 to 2025
3-year grant rate
42%
−31 pts vs the USPTO allowed within 3 years of the first action
Allowance rate
n/a
Needs 10 decided cases; has 9
Rejections before allowance
n/a
Needs 5 decided cases; has 4
Months to first action
16.7 mo
−1.9 vs the USPTO
Patents granted
4
5 abandoned
Still pending
1
10% of the applications
Needed an RCE
0%
−27 pts vs the USPTO
Months to a decision
25.7 mo
−4.8 vs the USPTO from filing to allowance or abandonment
In plain words
For AMC Corporation, 42% of applications were allowed within three years of the first office action, against 72% for the USPTO. An allowance took 0.5 rejections on average, against 1.6 for the USPTO. The first action takes 16.7 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 10 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 the USPTO. 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 the USPTO.
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 the office
Against every applicant before the USPTO
The same figures for this record and for 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 the USPTO.
After a response
Which grounds are withdrawn after a response
How often each ground is gone from the next action once it has been answered.
What works
Allowance by strategy used
Allowance rate among decided cases where each move was used at least once, against the USPTO.
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 office takes to act once a response is in.
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.
Cited art
References cited most against these applications
From the rejections in the most recently decided applications.
Trend
Allowance rate by filing year
Is it getting easier or harder? Gold is this record, blue is the USPTO.
Appeals
What happens on appeal
Appeals filed, briefs, examiner’s answers, and how the Board decided.
Domains
Where the applications fall
The technology domains and the art units with the most of these applications.
Art units
Art unit 28331 apps
Art unit 21971 apps
Art unit 17351 apps
Art unit 28311 apps
Art unit 37861 apps
Art unit 24471 apps
Examiners met
The examiners seen most, and how it went with each
The allowance rate of this company’s decided applications with each examiner.
Examiner 160 apps63%
Examiner 251 apps80%
Examiner 343 apps56%
Examiner 434 apps74%
Examiner 526 apps52%
Examiner 617 apps71%
Bars show the share of decided applications that were allowed.
Who represents them
Law firms and agents on their applications
How often each firm’s applications for this company were allowed.
Firm 160 apps63%
Firm 251 apps80%
Firm 343 apps56%
Firm 434 apps74%
Firm 526 apps52%
Firm 617 apps71%
Bars show the share of decided applications that were allowed.
The simulator, the paths, the odds by round, the response clock, the quarter timing and the withdrawals are read from the 9 most recently decided applications.
The portfolio
What is filed, where it lands and who is behind it
Filed and granted
10 applications filed and 4 patents granted, year by year
Filed by the year of filing, granted by the year the patent issued; the best year for grants was 2015 with 1.
Where it is examined
By tech center and art unit
How many applications each tech center and art unit took, and how they fared there against what the unit usually allows.
Tech centers
Tech center 1600400 apps55%
Tech center 2100340 apps60%
Tech center 2600280 apps65%
Tech center 3100220 apps70%
Tech center 3600160 apps75%
Art units
Art unit 2121180 apps50%
Art unit 2134162 apps56%
Art unit 2147144 apps62%
Art unit 2160126 apps68%
Art unit 2173108 apps74%
Art unit 218690 apps80%
Bars show the share of decided applications allowed in each; the white mark is what that unit allows across every applicant.
Technology mix
What was filed, year by year
Applications by filing year, stacked by technology domain. Click a domain to hide or show it.
Outside counsel
The law firms behind these applications, and how each one does
Applications across, allowance rate up; larger bubbles took longer. Click a bubble to open it.
Inventors
Who invents here most
Named inventors by the number of these applications they are on.
Inventor 139 apps
Inventor 234 apps
Inventor 329 apps
Inventor 424 apps
Inventor 519 apps
Inventor 614 apps
Inventor 79 apps
Indicative portfolio value
What the patents in force and the pending applications could be worth
Each asset of this company priced on its own from its field, its age and what its prosecution shows, then added up. A package this size would trade below the sum.
$18 million to $130 million
412 patents in force
$3 million to $18 million
150 pending applications, weighed by the odds of allowance
$43,000 to $320,000
the average patent in force
Software and data processing260 assets$9 million to $70 million
Communications and networking140 assets$7 million to $52 million
Semiconductors and electronics90 assets$5 million to $28 million
An indicative range read from the record, not an appraisal. The claims are not read, and evidence of use, family members abroad, licenses and maintenance fees are not in the record: each can move a real price more than everything shown here. The starting range is an assumption for a routine granted US patent in a brokered sale; a buyer whose product the claims block can pay several times more.
Explore the portfolio
Every application, every decision, in view
Hover any mark for the case behind it, click to open it, and download any view as an image or a table.
Every application
Every application, each as a dot
Filed across, months to the decision up; green allowed, red abandoned, blue pending; larger dots drew more rejections. Drag across the years to zoom, click a dot to open the case.
Technology
Where the applications fall, and how each field fares
Sized by applications, colored by allowance rate. Click a field to open it.
The draw
The art units these applications land in
Sized by applications, colored by allowance rate. A red tile is a hard unit; click one to see its examiners.
Decision calendar
When decisions land, month by month
Ten years of allowances, abandonments and first actions. Switch the measure to see each.
Prosecution, case by case
The most recent decisions, event by event
Each row is one application from filing to its end: rejections, responses, interviews, RCEs and the outcome. Hover a mark for the date; click a row to open the case.
Applications
Every application in the record
| Application | Title | Filed | Status | Rejections | RCEs | To 1st action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18573076 | Elastic neutral ankle foot orthosis | 2025-01-22 | Pending | 1 | 0 | 15.9 mo |
| 18744337 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GAZE ESTIMATION BASED ON EVENT CAMERAS | 2024-06-14 | Abandoned | 1 | 0 | 14.2 mo |
| 18645079 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING PUPIL CENTER BASED ON CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWOR… | 2024-04-24 | Abandoned | 1 | 0 | 21.6 mo |
| 15865165 | Method and apparatus for adaptive signal processing | 2012-01-10 | Allowed | 1 | 0 | 12.0 mo |
| 15155280 | Composition and method for controlled release | 2015-02-11 | Abandoned | 4 | 1 | 23.0 mo |
| 15872749 | Distributed ledger transaction verification | 2018-03-12 | Allowed | 3 | 0 | 20.0 mo |
| 15355056 | Thermal management of battery assemblies | 2021-04-13 | Pending | 2 | 1 | 17.0 mo |
| 15791553 | Machine learning model for anomaly detection | 2012-05-14 | Allowed | 1 | 0 | 14.0 mo |
| 15175251 | Wireless power transfer coil arrangement | 2015-06-15 | Abandoned | 4 | 1 | 25.0 mo |
| 15363016 | Catalyst for selective hydrogenation | 2018-07-16 | Allowed | 3 | 0 | 22.0 mo |