Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18785672 | COALESCING MULTIPLE SMALL WRITES TO LARGE FILES OR MULTIPLE WRITES TO A NUMBER OF SMALL FILES TO GENERATE LARGER COMPRESSIBLE CHUNKS FOR INLINE COMPRESSION | July 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18758537 | Method and Apparatus for Generating Chunk Group and Device | June 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18751685 | IMAGE MANAGEMENT APPARATUS MANAGING AUTOMATIC IMAGE DELETION OF TRANSFERRED IMAGE BASED ON GRACE PERIOD, AND IMAGE MANAGEMENT METHOD AND RECORDING MEDIUM | June 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18731676 | IN-MEMORY COMPUTATION DEVICE FOR PERFORMING A SIGNED MAC OPERATION | June 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 17 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18731019 | ADAPTIVE SEGMENT HEIGHT CALCULATION TO MINIMIZE PINNED SPACE | May 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18671846 | CONCURRENT PAGE CACHE RESOURCE ACCESS IN A MULTI-PLANE MEMORY DEVICE | May 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18652155 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR MANAGING VEHICLE DATA FOR PERFORMING AUTONOMOUS DRIVING CONTROL | May 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18644641 | METHOD FOR DATA DEDUPLICATION OF STORAGE APPARATUS USING STORAGE CLASS MEMORY TO STORE FINGERPRINT DATA, AND STORAGE APPARATUS INCLUDING STORAGE CLASS MEMORY TO STORE FINGERPRINT DATA | April 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18644558 | MEMORY DEVICE, MEMORY SYSTEM, AND OPERATING METHOD OF COMPRESSION USING POSITION VALUES | April 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 21 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18595769 | MEMORY DEVICE, OPERATING METHOD OF MEMORY DEVICE AND MEMORY SYSTEM INCLUDING A FIRST SUBBLOCK CONFIGURED TO PERFORM OPERATIONS INDEPENDENTLY OF A SECOND SUBBLOCK | March 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18409357 | TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT OPERATION OF MEMORIES | January 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18545630 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LOW COST DATA INDEXING | December 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 25 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18354767 | COMPUTATIONAL STORAGE DEVICE CONFIGURED TO TRANSFER INTERMEDIATE DATA BETWEEN COMPUTE ENGINES AND METHOD FOR OPERATING THE DEVICE | July 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18099246 | SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUS FOR DATA PLACEMENT IN A STORAGE DEVICE | January 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 36 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18065054 | SPEEDING CACHE SCANS WITH A BYTEMAP OF ACTIVE TRACKS WITH ENCODED BITS | December 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18056842 | HYBRID DESIGN FOR LARGE SCALE BLOCK DEVICE COMPRESSION USING FLAT HASH TABLE | November 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16968371 | WRITE BUFFER CONTROL IN MANAGED MEMORY SYSTEM | August 2020 | November 2025 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16383776 | QUEUING READ REQUESTS BASED ON WRITE REQUESTS | April 2019 | January 2020 | Allow | 9 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16370013 | TECHNOLOGIES FOR EFFICIENT EXIT FROM HYPER-DIMENSIONAL SPACE IN THE PRESENCE OF ERRORS | March 2019 | October 2020 | Allow | 19 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16248640 | Distributed Dataset Modification, Retention, and Replication | January 2019 | December 2020 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15982792 | BUFFERED FREEPOINTER MANAGEMENT MEMORY SYSTEM | May 2018 | May 2020 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15469163 | SATISFYING RECOVERY SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS (SLAs) | March 2017 | March 2020 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15457199 | FRAME CHOOSING DURING STORAGE CONSTRAINT CONDITION | March 2017 | June 2017 | Allow | 3 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15428316 | ASYNCHRONOUS CLEANUP AFTER A PEER-TO-PEER REMOTE COPY (PPRC) TERMINATE RELATIONSHIP OPERATION | February 2017 | June 2017 | Allow | 4 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15272303 | LOG SNAPSHOT PROCEDURE CONTROL ON AN AUTOMATED DATA STORAGE LIBRARY | September 2016 | May 2020 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15136872 | MULTI-CELL STRUCTURE FOR NON-VOLATILE RESISTIVE MEMORY | April 2016 | October 2020 | Allow | 54 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14882590 | VIRTUAL DRIVE MAPPING | October 2015 | April 2016 | Allow | 6 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14811911 | DATA COLLECTION IN A MULTI-THREADED PROCESSOR | July 2015 | May 2019 | Allow | 45 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14730368 | PARALLEL BLOCK ALLOCATION FOR DECLUSTERED LOGICAL DISKS | June 2015 | June 2015 | Allow | 1 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14715196 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REGULATING ACCESS TO MEMORY MAPPING INFORMATION AT A MEMORY MANAGEMENT UNIT | May 2015 | October 2015 | Allow | 5 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14656941 | MEMORY CONTROLLER, STORAGE APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, AND CONTROL METHOD FOR THE SAME | March 2015 | February 2017 | Allow | 24 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14468666 | PARALLEL BLOCK ALLOCATION FOR DECLUSTERED LOGICAL DISKS | August 2014 | May 2015 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14188650 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR VALIDATION OF CACHE MEMORY LOCKING | February 2014 | November 2015 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14186773 | DATA ACCESS TO A STORAGE TIER ON A CLIENT IN A MULTI-TIERED STORAGE SYSTEM | February 2014 | August 2016 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14186507 | OPTIMIZING PEER-TO-PEER REMOTE COPY (PPRC) TRANSFERS FOR PARTIAL WRITE OPERATIONS USING A MODIFIED SECTORS BITMAP | February 2014 | August 2016 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13772295 | DYNAMICALLY THROTTLING HOST COMMANDS TO DISK DRIVES | February 2013 | October 2015 | Allow | 32 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13167246 | DISK DRIVE WITH RECENT WRITE STREAMS LIST FOR DATA REFRESH DETERMINATION | June 2011 | September 2015 | Allow | 51 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13166985 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MULTISTAGE PROCESSING IN A MEMORY STORAGE SUBSYSTEM | June 2011 | June 2015 | Allow | 48 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11932575 | RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FOR DATA STORAGE SERVICES | October 2007 | April 2010 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11063809 | POLICY BASED DATA SHREDDING FOR STORAGE CONTROLLER | February 2005 | January 2010 | Allow | 59 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11029322 | APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR OPTIMIZING RECALL OF LOGICAL VOLUMES IN A VIRTUAL TAPE SERVER | January 2005 | February 2010 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D.
With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.
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.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D works in Art Unit 2138 and has examined 25 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 30 months.
Examiner BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D'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 BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D receive 2.24 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 62% 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 BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D is 30 months. This places the examiner in the 59% 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 BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D. 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, 21.9% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 27% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 41.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 64% 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, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 5% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 15% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.
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 4.0% of allowed cases (in the 83% 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 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.