Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18696388 | STORAGE OPTIMIZATION METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DISTRIBUTED STORAGE SYSTEM | March 2024 | January 2026 | Abandon | 22 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18415979 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF MANAGING MEMORY ACCESS AMONG ONE OR MORE COMPUTING ENTITIES | January 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 26 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18359694 | DATA STORAGE DEVICE | July 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 30 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17896891 | MEMORY SYSTEM MANAGING CACHE IN HOST MEMORY | August 2022 | November 2025 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17696135 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR ASCERTAINING ADDRESS VALUES | March 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 46 | 6 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17581687 | LOCATING A MEMORY UNIT ASSOCIATED WITH A MEMORY ADDRESS UTILIZING A MAPPER | January 2022 | March 2026 | Abandon | 49 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 16524385 | REDUCING IMPACT OF CONTEXT SWITCHES THROUGH DYNAMIC MEMORY-MAPPING OVERALLOCATION | July 2019 | March 2021 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15833851 | TIERING DATA COMPRESSION WITHIN A STORAGE SYSTEM | December 2017 | November 2020 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15494925 | ESTABLISHING A LOGICAL CONFIGURATION FOR A DATA STORAGE LIBRARY | April 2017 | July 2017 | Allow | 2 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15248939 | EXTRA WRITE SCALING FOR PERFORMANCE AND RELIABILITY | August 2016 | November 2018 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15213492 | HIGH SPEED MEMORY SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DESIGNING HIERARCHICAL MEMORY SYSTEMS | July 2016 | April 2018 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14855642 | SALVAGING LOCK ELISION TRANSACTIONS | September 2015 | September 2016 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14791802 | AUTONOMIC RECLAMATION PROCESSING ON SEQUENTIAL STORAGE MEDIA | July 2015 | August 2016 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13786793 | ADMINISTERING A SHARED, ON-LINE POOL OF DATA STORAGE RESOURCES FOR PERFORMING DATA STORAGE OPERATIONS | March 2013 | August 2016 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13235421 | MEMORY SYSTEM CAPABLE OF PROHIBITING ACCESS TO APPLICATION SOFTWARE AND SYSTEM SOFTWARE | September 2011 | June 2016 | Allow | 57 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13234954 | FASTER TREE FLATTENING FOR A SYSTEM HAVING NON-VOLATILE MEMORY | September 2011 | June 2014 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12974943 | TWO-PORT MEMORY CAPABLE OF SIMULTANEOUS READ AND WRITE | December 2010 | December 2014 | Allow | 47 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 12769751 | AUTONOMIC RECLAMATION PROCESSING ON SEQUENTIAL STORAGE MEDIA | April 2010 | March 2015 | Allow | 59 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11929879 | RUNTIME REGISTER ALLOCATOR | October 2007 | November 2008 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11925015 | RUNTIME REGISTER ALLOCATOR | October 2007 | December 2008 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10950416 | NON-VOLATILE SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE AND ELECTRIC DEVICE WITH THE SAME | September 2004 | June 2007 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10425402 | MULTIPROCESSOR SYSTEM WITH RETRY-LESS TLBI PROTOCOL | April 2003 | June 2009 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner DARE, RYAN A.
Filing a Notice of Appeal can sometimes lead to allowance even before the appeal is fully briefed or decided by the PTAB. This occurs when the examiner or their supervisor reconsiders the rejection during the mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) after the appeal is filed.
In this dataset, 100.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner DARE, RYAN A works in Art Unit 2132 and has examined 16 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 100.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 33 months.
Examiner DARE, RYAN A's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 94% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by DARE, RYAN A receive 1.62 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 32% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by DARE, RYAN A is 33 months. This places the examiner in the 46% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 97% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 33.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 49% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 89% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 1% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 12.5% of allowed cases (in the 95% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
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.
Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:
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.