PATLY.AIWhere it stands
How SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP/Microsoft compares with other law firms
Every one with thirty or more decided applications, from the lowest allowance rate to the highest; the dashed line is this firm. Switch the measure.
Applications prosecuted580 308 allowed, 136 abandoned, 136 pending
Active in the record2007 to 2026
StandingAllowed more often than 38% of law firms
3-year grant rate
reading the record
Allowance rate
69%
−6 pts vs the USPTO range 65% to 73%
Rejections before allowance
1.8
+0.3 vs the USPTO
Months to first action
20.1 mo
+1.5 vs the USPTO
Patents won
308
136 abandoned
Still pending
136
23% of the applications
Needed an RCE
57%
+30 pts vs the USPTO
Months to a decision
34.0 mo
+3.5 vs the USPTO from filing to allowance or abandonment
In plain words
For SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP/Microsoft, 69% of decided applications were allowed, against 75% for the USPTO. An allowance took 1.8 rejections on average, against 1.6 for the USPTO. The first action takes 20.1 months on average. That allowance rate is higher than 38% of the 9,817 law firms with thirty or more decided applications.
Allowed less often38th percentileAllowed more often
Allowance rate among the 9,817 law firms with thirty or more decided applicationsTimeline
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 580 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.
CPC subclasses
Art units
Art unit OPAP42 apps
Art unit 243813 apps
Art unit 216313 apps
Art unit 362413 apps
Art unit 216813 apps
Art unit 362312 apps
Examiners met
The examiners seen most, and how it went with each
The allowance rate of this firm’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 they file for
Clients with the most applications
How often each client’s applications with this firm were allowed.
Client 160 apps63%
Client 251 apps80%
Client 343 apps56%
Client 434 apps74%
Client 526 apps52%
Client 617 apps71%
Bars show the share of decided applications that were allowed.
The record in depth
Every application, every decision, in view
Reading the recordReading 580 applications for the portfolio views. The first visit takes a few seconds; after that this page opens at once.
Applications
Every application in the record
| Application | Title | Filed | Status | Rejections | RCEs | To 1st action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19713534 | MEETING-VIDEO MANAGEMENT ENGINE FOR A MEETING-VIDEO MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | 2026-06-18 | Pending | 0 | 0 | n/a |
| 19709244 | MULTI-USER VIRTUAL MACHINE PLATFORM | 2026-06-16 | Pending | 0 | 0 | n/a |
| 19707872 | LATENT-CONTEXT ALERT CORRELATION ENGINE IN A SECURITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | 2026-06-15 | Pending | 0 | 0 | n/a |
| 15752374 | Method and apparatus for adaptive signal processing | 2012-01-10 | Allowed | 1 | 0 | 12.0 mo |
| 15583220 | Composition and method for controlled release | 2015-02-11 | Abandoned | 4 | 1 | 23.0 mo |
| 15156368 | Distributed ledger transaction verification | 2018-03-12 | Allowed | 3 | 0 | 20.0 mo |
| 15969161 | Thermal management of battery assemblies | 2021-04-13 | Pending | 2 | 1 | 17.0 mo |
| 15924556 | Machine learning model for anomaly detection | 2012-05-14 | Allowed | 1 | 0 | 14.0 mo |
| 15472356 | Wireless power transfer coil arrangement | 2015-06-15 | Abandoned | 4 | 1 | 25.0 mo |
| 15700410 | Catalyst for selective hydrogenation | 2018-07-16 | Allowed | 3 | 0 | 22.0 mo |