Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19022852 | METHOD OF ORGANIZING A PROGRAMMABLE ATOMIC UNIT INSTRUCTION MEMORY | January 2025 | March 2026 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18825319 | Data Storage Device and Method for Buffer Occupancy-Based Data Placement to Avoid Video Loss | September 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18805083 | FLEXIBLE MEMORY SYSTEM | August 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18804363 | STORAGE DEVICE, STORAGE SYSTEM, AND OPERATING METHOD OF STORAGE SYSTEM | August 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18772553 | PROVIDING MULTIPLE ERROR CORRECTION CODE PROTECTION LEVELS IN MEMORY | July 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18771972 | MEMORY MANAGEMENT AMONG MULTIPLE ERASE BLOCKS COUPLED TO A SAME STRING | July 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18673276 | MEMORY WITH VIRTUAL PAGE SIZE | May 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18649187 | STORAGE SYSTEM AND COMPUTING SYSTEM COMPRISING THE SAME | April 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18598318 | MEMORY SYSTEM | March 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18592763 | MEMORY SYSTEM AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING NONVOLATILE MEMORY | March 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18416329 | Data Storage Device and Method for Configuring a Memory to Write a Requested Amount of Data Over the Memory's Lifetime | January 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18539794 | APPARATUS, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING INPUT/OUTPUT (IO) REQUEST REROUTING | December 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18516333 | Data Spillover For Storage Arrays | November 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18486780 | STORAGE DEVICE ALLOCATING TARGET STORAGE AREA FOR TARGET APPLICATION, SYSTEM AND OPERATING METHOD OF THE STORAGE DEVICE | October 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18451865 | REAL-TIME ANALYSIS FOR DYNAMIC STORAGE | August 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 27 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18448261 | Dynamic Garbage Collection Operations | August 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18349176 | CONTROLLER, STORAGE DEVICE AND COMPUTING SYSTEM FOR ENSURING INTEGRITY OF DATA | July 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18348267 | DATA TRANSFORM ACCELERATION | July 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 31 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18097280 | LOGGING, STREAMING AND ANALYTICS PLATFORMS USING ANY OBJECT STORE AS PRIMARY STORE | January 2023 | October 2025 | Abandon | 33 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17572621 | SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING DATA AT A STORAGE DEVICE | January 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 50 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16418362 | Just-In-Time Data Migration in a Live System | May 2019 | March 2021 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16375690 | USING CONTENT ADDRESSABLE MEMORY TO PERFORM READ-MODIFY-WRITE OPERATIONS IN NON-VOLATILE RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY (NVRAM) | April 2019 | February 2021 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16148924 | REDUCING EFFECTS OF READ ARRAY OPERATIONS OF READ APPARENT VOLTAGE | October 2018 | April 2021 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16023056 | EFFICIENT UTILIZATION OF STORAGE SPACE IN ARRAYS OF STORAGE DRIVES | June 2018 | July 2021 | Allow | 37 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15827072 | MODIFYING ASPECTS OF A STORAGE SYSTEM ASSOCIATED WITH DATA MIRRORING | November 2017 | July 2019 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15826602 | PREVENT DISK HARDWARE FAILURE FOR CLOUD APPLICATIONS | November 2017 | July 2020 | Allow | 31 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15802889 | FILE MANAGEMENT IN A FILE SYSTEM | November 2017 | October 2018 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15652157 | ACCESSING PHYSICAL MEMORY FROM A CPU OR PROCESSING ELEMENT IN A HIGH PERFORMANCE MANNER | July 2017 | December 2018 | Allow | 17 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14887374 | I/O STATISTIC BASED DEPOPULATION OF STORAGE RANKS | October 2015 | November 2017 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14868558 | NONVOLATILE MEMORY DATA SECURITY | September 2015 | May 2017 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14845359 | ADDRESS PROBING FOR TRANSACTION | September 2015 | May 2017 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14841787 | NONVOLATILE MEMORY DATA SECURITY | September 2015 | April 2017 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14842145 | FILE MANAGEMENT IN A FILE SYSTEM | September 2015 | August 2017 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14833650 | PARITY STRIPE LOCK ENGINE | August 2015 | May 2017 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14813436 | EFFICIENT ENFORCEMENT OF COMMAND EXECUTION ORDER IN SOLID STATE DRIVES | July 2015 | March 2018 | Allow | 31 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14813250 | PARITY STRIPE LOCK ENGINE | July 2015 | May 2017 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14803247 | STORAGE SYSTEM WITH VIRTUAL VOLUME HAVING DATA ARRANGED ASTRIDE STORAGE DEVICES, AND VOLUME MANAGEMENT METHOD | July 2015 | January 2017 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14751919 | ADDRESS PROBING FOR TRANSACTION | June 2015 | May 2017 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13795247 | Method And Apparatus For Accessing Physical Memory From A CPU Or Processing Element In A High Performance Manner | March 2013 | March 2017 | Allow | 48 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13763163 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR BACKING UP VIRTUAL MACHINE DATA | February 2013 | February 2016 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13608559 | Optimizing Migration/Copy of De-Duplicated Data | September 2012 | December 2015 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13596331 | ACCESSING REMOTE MEMORY ON A MEMORY BLADE | August 2012 | July 2015 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13594098 | SYSTEMS, METHODS AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS MEMORY SPACE MANAGEMENT FOR STORAGE CLASS MEMORY | August 2012 | July 2015 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13593299 | EFFICIENT ENFORCEMENT OF COMMAND EXECUTION ORDER IN SOLID STATE DRIVES | August 2012 | April 2015 | Allow | 32 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13551892 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR BACKUP AND RECOVERY USING STORAGE BASED JOURNALING | July 2012 | March 2015 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13453605 | MERGING COMMAND SEQUENCES FOR MEMORY OPERATIONS | April 2012 | April 2015 | Allow | 36 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13392977 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FILTERING RECEIVED DATA UNITS | February 2012 | December 2015 | Allow | 46 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13391477 | STORAGE SYSTEM WITH VIRTUAL VOLUME HAVING DATA ARRANGED ASTRIDE STORAGE DEVICES, AND VOLUME MANAGEMENT METHOD | February 2012 | March 2015 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13399587 | NON-VOLATILE MEMORY DEVICES AND CONTROL AND OPERATION THEREOF | February 2012 | August 2015 | Allow | 42 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13399010 | Method for managing physical memory of a data storage and data storage management system | February 2012 | November 2015 | Allow | 45 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13192104 | DATA CACHING IN A NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS PROCESSOR ARCHITECTURE | July 2011 | July 2015 | Allow | 47 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13163745 | MEMORY MANAGEMENT MODEL AND INTERFACE FOR UNMODIFIED APPLICATIONS | June 2011 | June 2017 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner WONG, NANCI N.
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, 0.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is less effective here than in most other areas.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner WONG, NANCI N works in Art Unit 2137 and has examined 32 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 31 months.
Examiner WONG, NANCI N'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 WONG, NANCI N receive 2.19 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 60% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by WONG, NANCI N is 31 months. This places the examiner in the 54% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by WONG, NANCI N. This interview benefit is in the 13% 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, 40.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 92% 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 38.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 58% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 94% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 89% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 10% 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 11% 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.