Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17133944 | INSPECTION SYSTEM, METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM FOR PROHIBITING ACCESS VIOLATION | December 2020 | October 2023 | Abandon | 34 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17089324 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR OPTIMIZED TRANSLATION OF A VIRTUAL ADDRESS HAVING MULTIPLE VIRTUAL ADDRESS PORTIONS USING MULTIPLE TRANSLATION LOOKASIDE BUFFER (TLB) ARRAYS FOR VARIABLE PAGE SIZES | November 2020 | May 2022 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17006117 | DATA STORAGE APPARATUS FOR THERMAL THROTTLING AND OPERATION METHOD THEREOF | August 2020 | May 2022 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17000066 | ADJUSTABLE PHYSICAL OR LOGICAL CAPACITY CRITERIA FOR WRITE CACHE REPLENISHMENT BASED ON TEMPERATURE OR PROGRAM ERASE CYCLES OF THE MEMORY DEVICE | August 2020 | June 2022 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16937219 | MEMORY SYSTEM WITH MEMORY CONTROLLER MANAGING AN ACCUMULATED ERASE COUNT VALUE AND AN OPEN BLOCK ERASE COUNT VALUE AND METHOD OF OPERATING THE SAME | July 2020 | May 2022 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16918521 | STORAGE DEVICE AND METHOD FOR FOGGY AND FINE PROGRAMMING | July 2020 | June 2023 | Allow | 35 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16916926 | TRANSFERRING DATA BETWEEN CLOCK DOMAINS USING PULSES ACROSS A QUEUE | June 2020 | May 2022 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16836454 | Flow Control of Large Sequential Host Read Commands Based on a Queue Threshold | March 2020 | March 2022 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16783955 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ENHANCING IOPS OF A HARD DISK DRIVE SYSTEM BASED ON STORING METADATA IN HOST VOLATILE MEMORY AND DATA IN NON-VOLATILE MEMORY USING A SHARED CONTROLLER | February 2020 | February 2022 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16720683 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR SHARING A DATA ATTRIBUTE FROM A MEMORY SYSTEM, A DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM OR A NETWORK SERVER | December 2019 | September 2022 | Abandon | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16708090 | TRANSPARENT DRIVE-TO-DRIVE COPYING | December 2019 | May 2023 | Allow | 41 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16691783 | DATA CACHE METHOD APPLIED TO DISPLAY DRIVER OF MOBILE DEVICE | November 2019 | November 2021 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16683502 | ROLLBACK PROCEDURE FOR FAILED DATASET IMAGE OPERATION | November 2019 | May 2023 | Allow | 42 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16410163 | DATA STORAGE APPARATUS AND SYSTEM INFORMATION PROGRAMMING METHOD THEREFOR | May 2019 | January 2023 | Abandon | 44 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 16204811 | WEAR LEVELING FOR NON-VOLATILE MEMORY USING DATA WRITE COUNTERS | November 2018 | June 2023 | Allow | 54 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16123249 | UTILIZING SPARE NETWORK NODES FOR DEDUPLICATION FINGERPRINTS DATABASE | September 2018 | June 2023 | Allow | 57 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15937146 | SPECIFYING MEDIA TYPE IN WRITE COMMANDS | March 2018 | March 2023 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner VO, TIM T.
With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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.
✓ Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner VO, TIM T works in Art Unit 2138 and has examined 17 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 76.5%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 33 months.
Examiner VO, TIM T's allowance rate of 76.5% places them in the 45% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by VO, TIM T receive 3.18 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 87% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues more office actions than most examiners, which may indicate thorough examination or difficulty in reaching agreement with applicants.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by VO, TIM T is 33 months. This places the examiner in the 46% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +40.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by VO, TIM T. This interview benefit is in the 87% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 15% 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.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 6.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 8% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 16% 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.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 9% 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.