In plain words
With F16M, 72% of applications were allowed within three years of the first office action. The first action takes 15.2 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 F16M | Overall allowance rate | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amy Jo Sterling | 377 | 80% | Easier than peers |
| Bradley Duckworth | 308 | 75% | Typical for peers |
| Christopher Garft | 302 | 60% | Harder than peers |
| Alfred J Wujciak | 278 | 76% | Harder than peers |
| Monica E Millner | 273 | 79% | Typical for peers |
| Tan Le | 250 | 74% | Typical for peers |
| Todd Michael Epps | 247 | 79% | Easier than peers |
| Anita M King | 237 | 84% | Easier than peers |
| Steven M Marsh | 212 | 82% | Typical for peers |
| Nkeisha Smith | 197 | 75% | Harder than peers |
| Kimberly T Wood | 189 | 56% | Harder than peers |
| Muhammad Ijaz | 187 | 76% | Typical for peers |
| Eret C McNichols | 179 | 77% | Typical for peers |
| Docket Central | 163 | 2% | Easier than peers |
| Michael D McDuffie | 129 | 71% | Typical for peers |
| Gwendolyn Wrenn Baxter | 117 | 76% | Typical for peers |
| Ingrid M Weinhold | 105 | 49% | Harder than peers |
| Taylor L Morris | 100 | 60% | Harder than peers |
| Ramon O Ramirez | 99 | 84% | Easier than peers |
| Guang H Guan | 94 | 60% | Harder than peers |
| Erin W Smith | 62 | 50% | Harder than peers |
| Daniel J Breslin | 54 | 61% | Harder than peers |
| Ko Hung Chan | 52 | 69% | Typical for peers |
| Fang-Chi Chang | 50 | 73% | Harder than peers |
| Ding Y Tan | 48 | 78% | Typical for peers |
PATLY.AI