PATLY.AIWhere it stands
How B27H compares with every other domain
Every domain with thirty or more decided applications, from the lowest allowance rate to the highest; the dashed line is B27H. Switch the measure.
3-year grant rate
72%
level with the USPTO allowed within 3 years of the first action
Allowance rate
72%
−3 pts vs the USPTO range 54% to 85%
Rejections before allowance
1.2
−0.4 vs the USPTO
Months to first action
23.0 mo
+4.4 vs the USPTO
In plain words
In B27H, 72% of applications were allowed within three years of the first office action, against 72% for the USPTO. An allowance took 1.2 rejections on average, against 1.6 for the USPTO. The first action takes 23.0 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 35 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Which grounds are withdrawn after a response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.
Inventors
Who invents most in this domain
Named inventors by the number of applications in B27H.
Inventor 135 apps
Inventor 230 apps
Inventor 325 apps
Inventor 420 apps
Inventor 515 apps
Inventor 610 apps
Places
Where it is invented
Cities by the number of applications with an inventor there.
City 181 apps
City 272 apps
City 363 apps
City 454 apps
City 545 apps
City 636 apps
The simulator, the paths, the odds by round, the response clock, the quarter timing and the withdrawals are read from the 29 most recently decided applications.
The record in depth
Where it is examined, who is behind it and what is pending
Filed and granted
35 applications filed and 21 patents granted, year by year
Filed by the year of filing, granted by the year the patent issued; the best year for grants was 2010 with 2.
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.
Who appears here
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
Pending and what to expect
The pending applications, carried forward
Each pending application is carried forward from its age on this record’s own allowance curve. The bars are the pending applications by years since filing.
The cost of this record
What prosecution takes from the first action to the end, priced two ways
What prosecution takes after filing, priced two ways. The same examiner can cost twice what another costs.
2.4
office actions per application
0.42
RCEs per application, at $1,500 of USPTO fees each
31%
of applications interview; 4% appeal
| Actions | Months | At firm rates | With Patly | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| This record | 2.4 | 27 | $7,836 | $1,834 |
Averages over 420 decided applications, granted and abandoned alike. Firm rates are assumptions: $2,800 per response, $600 per interview, $7,500 per appeal. The Patly column swaps in its published $299 per office action response and keeps everything else the same. USPTO fees for RCEs are counted in both. Drafting and filing are not included.
Indicative portfolio value
What the patents in force and the pending applications could be worth
Each asset of this domain 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 record
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.
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.
Rejections over time
Which grounds these applications draw, year by year
The share of examined applications that drew each ground, by filing year. Click a ground to hide or show it.
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.
Examiners
Who examines B27H
| Examiner | Cases in B27H | Overall allowance rate | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Matthew Gordon Katcoff | 6 | 73% | Typical for peers |
| Mark Rosenbaum | 5 | 84% | Easier than peers |
| Robert J Grun | 3 | 71% | Typical for peers |
| Shawn M Braden | 2 | 71% | Easier than peers |
| Erica E Cadugan | 2 | 77% | Easier than peers |
| Kimberly R Lockett | 1 | 88% | Typical for peers |
| Kurt Joseph Wolford | 1 | 75% | Typical for peers |
| Lee D Wilson | 1 | 85% | Easier than peers |
| Nathan L Van Sell | 1 | 53% | Typical for peers |
| Edward Thomas Tolan | 1 | 79% | Typical for peers |
| Christopher L Templeton | 1 | 49% | Harder than peers |
| Essama Omgba | 1 | 62% | Harder than peers |
| Bobby Yeonjin Kim | 1 | 83% | Easier than peers |
| Daniel H. Lee | 1 | 72% | Typical for peers |
| Thomas Joseph Kessler Jr | 1 | 44% | Harder than peers |
| Robert J Hicks | 1 | 78% | Easier than peers |
| Teresa A Guthrie | 1 | 68% | Typical for peers |
| Faye Francis | 1 | 81% | Easier than peers |
| Docket Central | 1 | 2% | Easier than peers |
| Stephen J Castellano | 1 | 70% | Typical for peers |
| Jorge L Carrasquillo | 1 | 86% | Typical for peers |
| Zheren J Yang | 1 | 56% | Typical for peers |