AI Patent Analysis Toolkit
PatentAgility
by KellDann

Examiner Patrick J. Connolly

Appears inactive Last observed office action: December 2011 (175 months ago).

Examiner Patrick J. Connolly appears to be very easy relative to their art unit, group, tech center, and USPTO peers. Their lifetime grant ratio is 85.8%, they average 1.33 office actions per granted patent, and their rejection profile leans toward ยง102.

Difficulty vs AU Very Easy
Difficulty vs Group Very Easy
Difficulty vs TC Very Easy
Difficulty vs USPTO Very Easy
Average OA / Grant 1.33
Export
Word PDF

Create account to export.

Examiner Details

Observed Examiner Years
4 years (2008-2011)
Tech Center
2800 - Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Group
2870 - Optics / Photocopying

Metrics

Applications Evaluated
155
Granted Applications
133
Non-Granted Applications
22
Avg OA / Grant
1.33
Last OA Observed
December 2011 (175 months ago)
Art Units Seen
2877
Work Groups Seen

Context Comparison

Scope Examiners Lifetime Grant Ratio Avg OA / Grant
This Examiner 1 85.8% 1.33
Art Unit 54 59.6% 1.47
Group 348 62.2% 1.71
Tech Center 2,395 63.3% 1.69
USPTO 16,348 53.5% 1.98

Grant Timeline

0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0% 2008 2009 2010 2011
Shaded region marks the last two observed years, where grant outcomes may lag due to recency.
Year Applications Granted Grant Rate
No observed data before 2008; examiner may not yet have been active in the available dataset.
2008 43 34 79.1%
2009 36 31 86.1%
2010 48 42 87.5%
2011 28 26 92.9%
No observed data after 2011; examiner may have gone inactive or moved out of examining work.

133 family-cache-validated grants; 0 OA-only grant signals.

Rejection Timeline

OA # Office Actions § 101 Percentage § 102 Percentage § 103 Percentage § 112 Percentage
1 155 2.6% 41.3% 38.1% 3.9%
2 35 2.9% 31.4% 25.7% 5.7%
3 8 0.0% 50.0% 37.5% 0.0%
4 3 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%

§ 101 Yearly Trend

0.0%
2008
4.1%
2009
1.6%
2010
7.1%
2011

Each bar shows the share of this examiner's observed office actions in that year that included a § 101 rejection.