As stated in previous post on chained priorities, since application A may have among it's priorities an application B that has a priority C and so on,
Since most probably origin of such chains are divisional applications. we may think about the need of recursively calculate as well priority date of applications.
In reality looking deeper into data and trying to understand of how many years would change the priority date by applying such calculations, we see improvement is very poor:
Less than 1% applications would change it's priority year.
On the other hand we may try to see some time series to understand if the lenght of chains is someway biased by year of application.
We notice from below graph, showing % of applications with 1 chained priority in last 20 years, that 1987 and 1988 had a peak, as well as 1994 1995 had a decrease, but overall we have a base line of about 6%.
Here below also detailed data by 5 yrs periods.
Thanks to Alfonso Gambardella and Myriam Mariani for suggestions.
Since most probably origin of such chains are divisional applications. we may think about the need of recursively calculate as well priority date of applications.
In reality looking deeper into data and trying to understand of how many years would change the priority date by applying such calculations, we see improvement is very poor:
years
|
# apps
|
%
|
-6
|
4.491
|
0,02%
|
-5
|
4.529
|
0,02%
|
-4
|
9.346
|
0,04%
|
-3
|
21.070
|
0,09%
|
-2
|
47.337
|
0,20%
|
-1
|
147.432
|
0,63%
|
0
|
23.326.843
|
99,01%
|
Less than 1% applications would change it's priority year.
On the other hand we may try to see some time series to understand if the lenght of chains is someway biased by year of application.
We notice from below graph, showing % of applications with 1 chained priority in last 20 years, that 1987 and 1988 had a peak, as well as 1994 1995 had a decrease, but overall we have a base line of about 6%.
Here below also detailed data by 5 yrs periods.
degree
|
1980-1984
|
1985-1989
|
1990-1994
|
1995-1999
|
2000-2004
|
2005-2009
|
||||||
0
|
1.362.490
|
92,94%
|
1.622.698
|
90,62%
|
2.116.052
|
93,59%
|
2.959.115
|
94,80%
|
4.018.002
|
93,32%
|
3.570.167
|
93,65%
|
1
|
99.539
|
6,79%
|
162.194
|
9,06%
|
139.624
|
6,18%
|
160.627
|
5,15%
|
284.970
|
6,62%
|
240.174
|
6,30%
|
2
|
3.348
|
0,23%
|
5.136
|
0,29%
|
4.914
|
0,22%
|
1.642
|
0,05%
|
2.237
|
0,05%
|
1.720
|
0,05%
|
3
|
444
|
0,03%
|
528
|
0,03%
|
428
|
0,02%
|
121
|
0,00%
|
177
|
0,00%
|
74
|
0,00%
|
>4
|
89
|
0,01%
|
124
|
0,01%
|
82
|
0,00%
|
10
|
0,00%
|
30
|
0,00%
|
32
|
0,00%
|
Total
|
1.465.910
|
1.790.680
|
2.261.100
|
3.121.515
|
4.305.416
|
3.812.167
|
||||||
Thanks to Alfonso Gambardella and Myriam Mariani for suggestions.
No comments:
Post a Comment