Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18735491 | MEMORY MANAGEMENT METHOD BASED ON COMPRESSED MEMORY AND APPARATUS USING THE SAME | June 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14029435 | SAVING LOG DATA USING A DISK SYSTEM AS PRIMARY CACHE AND A TAPE LIBRARY AS SECONDARY CACHE | September 2013 | September 2014 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13873085 | SNAPSHOT STORAGE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WITH INDEXING AND USER INTERFACE | April 2013 | August 2014 | Allow | 15 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13880194 | Performance and Energy Efficiency While Using Large Pages | April 2013 | August 2016 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12784276 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ACCESSING CACHE MEMORY | May 2010 | August 2014 | Allow | 51 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11459997 | DAISY CHAINABLE SELF TIMED MEMORY CHIP | July 2006 | September 2009 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11459969 | CARRIER HAVING DAISY CHAINED MEMORY CHIPS | July 2006 | June 2009 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11459974 | COMPUTER SYSTEM HAVING DAISY CHAINED MEMORY CHIPS | July 2006 | October 2009 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11459983 | CARRIER HAVING DAISY CHAIN OF SELF TIMED MEMORY CHIPS | July 2006 | September 2009 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10919418 | OPTICAL DISC PLAYER WITH SLEEP MODE | August 2004 | January 2006 | Allow | 17 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 10744723 | PARALLEL MEMORY COMPACTION | December 2003 | November 2006 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10454141 | STORAGE DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM HAVING STORAGE DEVICE, FORMAT METHOD FOR STORAGE DEVICE, DATA RECORDING METHOD, AND PROGRAM FOR IMPLEMENTING FORMATTING AND DATA RECORDING | June 2003 | November 2005 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10158534 | DIRECT ADDRESSED SHARED COMPRESSED MEMORY SYSTEM | May 2002 | December 2005 | Allow | 43 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner RUTZ, JARED IAN works in Art Unit 2135 and has examined 12 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 38 months.
Examiner RUTZ, JARED IAN's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 98% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by RUTZ, JARED IAN receive 1.58 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 41% 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 RUTZ, JARED IAN is 38 months. This places the examiner in the 12% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by RUTZ, JARED IAN. This interview benefit is in the 10% percentile among all examiners. Note: Interviews show limited statistical benefit with this examiner compared to others, though they may still be valuable for clarifying issues.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 37.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 82% 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 60.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 82% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 16.7% of allowed cases (in the 98% 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 9% 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.