USPTO Examiner RAMESH TIRUMALE K - Art Unit 2121

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17136054META COOPERATIVE TRAINING PARADIGMSDecember 2020March 2025Allow5020YesNo
17111069DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING DIGITAL DATADecember 2020February 2025Abandon5120NoNo
17108426DYNAMIC CLASSIFICATION ENGINE SELECTION USING RULES AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA METRICSDecember 2020March 2025Abandon5220NoNo
17105651SELF-ORGANIZING MAP LEARNING DEVICE AND METHOD, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM STORING SELF-ORGANIZING MAP LEARNING PROGRAM AND STATE DETERMINATION DEVICENovember 2020June 2025Abandon5421NoNo
16952970SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PERFORMING A COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED PRIOR ART SEARCH AND NOVEL MARKUSH LANDSCAPENovember 2020June 2025Abandon5420YesNo
17090134DEEP SIMULATION NETWORKSNovember 2020June 2025Abandon5530NoNo
17064561BLOCK-BASED INFERENCE METHOD FOR MEMORY-EFFICIENT CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORK IMPLEMENTATION AND SYSTEM THEREOFOctober 2020November 2024Allow4930NoNo
17039178HARDWARE-OPTIMIZED NEURAL ARCHITECTURE SEARCHSeptember 2020June 2024Allow4420YesNo
17024062LEARNING METHOD OF NEURAL NETWORK MODEL FOR LANGUAGE GENERATION AND APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING THE LEARNING METHODSeptember 2020October 2024Abandon4920NoNo
17022895METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING SENSOR DATA USING A CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORKSeptember 2020June 2024Abandon4520NoNo
16975949UNSUPERVISED NEURAL NETWORK TRAINING USING LEARNED OPTIMIZERSAugust 2020February 2025Abandon5320NoNo
17002960MONITORING COMPUTING SYSTEM STATUS BY IMPLEMENTING A DEEP UNSUPERVISED BINARY CODING NETWORKAugust 2020May 2024Abandon4410NoNo
16927300COOPERATIVE USE OF A GENETIC ALGORITHM AND AN OPTIMIZATION TRAINER FOR AUTOENCODER GENERATIONJuly 2020January 2025Abandon5420NoNo
16922544DEVICE AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A NEURAL NETWORKJuly 2020August 2024Abandon5020YesNo
16880147OUT-OF-DISTRIBUTION (OOD) DETECTION BY PERTURBATIONMay 2020March 2025Abandon5840YesNo
16844335TERMINAL DEVICE AND METHOD FOR ESTIMATING FIREFIGHTING DATAApril 2020August 2023Allow4110NoNo
16815960Active Federated Learning for Assistant SystemsMarch 2020July 2024Abandon5220NoNo
16792006SCORING FOR SEARCH RETRIEVAL AND RANKING ALIGNMENTFebruary 2020March 2025Abandon6040YesNo
16601356MEMORY COMPONENT WITH INTERNAL LOGIC TO PERFORM A MACHINE LEARNING OPERATIONOctober 2019December 2024Abandon6040YesNo
16509098SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND DEVICES FOR EARLY-EXIT FROM CONVOLUTIONJuly 2019January 2024Abandon5420YesNo
16424166Automated Scaling Of Resources Based On Long Short-Term Memory Recurrent Neural Networks And Attention MechanismsMay 2019December 2024Abandon6040YesNo
16039056Neural Network Processing Method, Apparatus, Device and Computer Readable Storage MediaJuly 2018December 2023Abandon6020NoNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner RAMESH, TIRUMALE K - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner RAMESH, TIRUMALE K works in Art Unit 2121 and has examined 22 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 18.2%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 53 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner RAMESH, TIRUMALE K's allowance rate of 18.2% places them in the 3% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by RAMESH, TIRUMALE K receive 2.36 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 63% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by RAMESH, TIRUMALE K is 53 months. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +6.8% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by RAMESH, TIRUMALE K. This interview benefit is in the 35% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 14.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 12% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show lower effectiveness with this examiner compared to others. Consider whether a continuation application might be more strategic, especially if you need to add new matter or significantly broaden claims.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 12.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 14% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments compared to other examiners. You should generally plan to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry. Per MPEP § 714.12, primary examiners have discretion in entering after-final amendments, and this examiner exercises that discretion conservatively.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 8% percentile). This examiner rarely makes examiner's amendments compared to other examiners. You should expect to make all necessary claim amendments yourself through formal amendment practice.

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 10% percentile). This examiner rarely issues Quayle actions compared to other examiners. Allowances typically come directly without a separate action for formal matters.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

Not Legal Advice: The information provided in this report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with a qualified patent attorney or agent for advice specific to your situation.

No Guarantees: We do not provide any guarantees as to the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the statistics presented above. Patent prosecution statistics are derived from publicly available USPTO data and are subject to data quality limitations, processing errors, and changes in USPTO practices over time.

Limitation of Liability: Under no circumstances will IronCrow AI be liable for any outcome, decision, or action resulting from your reliance on the statistics, analysis, or recommendations presented in this report. Past prosecution patterns do not guarantee future results.

Use at Your Own Risk: While we strive to provide accurate and useful prosecution statistics, you should independently verify any information that is material to your prosecution strategy and use your professional judgment in all patent prosecution matters.