In plain words
With C01B, 70% of applications were allowed within three years of the first office action. The first action takes 20.5 months on average.
Timeline
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
Grant rate from the first action
The gold line is this record and the blue line is all domains. The marker is the three-year grant rate.
Outcome simulator
A model of this record’s own transitions: each examiner action, the response to it, and what came next. Thin data borrows from all domains.
Prosecution paths
Every application’s sequence of examiner actions, from the first action to the outcome. Hover a band for the count.
Compared with peers
The same figures for this record, all domains, the tech center and the whole office.
Allowance over time
Share allowed (gold) and abandoned (red) by month since filing, with pending cases counted only while they are pending.
Rejection fingerprint
Share of office actions raising each ground; blue is all domains.
What works
Allowance rate among decided cases where each move was used at least once, against all domains.
Interviews
Allowance with and without an examiner interview, and how often interviews happen.
Odds by round
After the first, second and later rejections.
Response clock
How long the examiner takes to act once you have answered.
Quarter-end timing
Allowances by week of the USPTO fiscal quarter. An even spread would put 15% in the last two weeks.
Appeals
Appeals filed, briefs, examiner’s answers, and how the Board decided.
Trend
Is it getting easier or harder? Gold is this record, blue is all domains.
Inventors
Places
Examiners
| Examiner | Cases in C01B | Overall allowance rate | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket Central | 1393 | 2% | Easier than peers |
| Daniel McCracken | 769 | 78% | Typical for peers |
| Richard M Rump | 542 | 76% | Typical for peers |
| Syed Taha Iqbal | 435 | 81% | Typical for peers |
| Guinever S Gregorio | 383 | 75% | Typical for peers |
| David M Brunsman | 361 | 84% | Easier than peers |
| Stuart L Hendrickson | 323 | 74% | Harder than peers |
| Timothy C Vanoy | 286 | 94% | Easier than peers |
| Ngoc Yen M Nguyen | 255 | 42% | Harder than peers |
| Anthony J Zimmer | 219 | 77% | Typical for peers |
| Matthew J Merkling | 218 | 76% | Typical for peers |
| Wayne A Langel | 214 | 80% | Typical for peers |
| Sheng Han Davis | 189 | 67% | Typical for peers |
| Michael Forrest | 178 | 63% | Typical for peers |
| Imran Akram | 167 | 71% | Typical for peers |
| Jafar F Parsa | 162 | 89% | Easier than peers |
| Douglas Bryant Call | 161 | 64% | Harder than peers |
| Paul A Wartalowicz | 161 | 67% | Typical for peers |
| Kenneth I Vaden | 159 | 67% | Typical for peers |
| Daniel H Miller | 158 | 57% | Typical for peers |
| Tri V Nguyen | 147 | 68% | Typical for peers |
| Xiuyu Tai | 142 | 62% | Typical for peers |
| James A Fiorito | 142 | 73% | Typical for peers |
| Jun Li | 130 | 55% | Harder than peers |
| Smita S Patel | 123 | 72% | Typical for peers |
PATLY.AI