Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18906179 | STORAGE DEVICE FOR ADAPTIVELY DETERMINING SCHEME OF WRITING DATA UNITS, AND OPERATING METHOD THEREOF | October 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18769926 | REPLAY PROTECTED MEMORY BLOCK DATA FRAME | July 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18613698 | Data Prefetching Method, Computing Node, and Storage System | March 2024 | March 2026 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18604149 | MEMORY MANAGEMENT USING A REGISTER | March 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18598712 | COMPUTE EXPRESS LINK DRAM + NAND SYSTEM SOLUTION | March 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18592238 | HARDWARE LATENCY MONITORING FOR MEMORY DEVICE INPUT/OUTPUT REQUESTS | February 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 23 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18588732 | STORAGE APPARATUS AND MIGRATION VERIFICATION METHOD | February 2024 | January 2026 | Abandon | 23 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18577202 | METHOD AND SYSTEM TO PERFORM STORAGE CAPACITY PLANNING IN HYPER-CONVERGED INFRASTRUCTURE ENVIRONMENT | January 2024 | January 2026 | Abandon | 24 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18513710 | AUTONOMOUS BATTERY RECHARGE CONTROLLER | November 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 26 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18342820 | LOW IMPACT MIGRATION OF LARGE DATA TO CLOUD AND VIRTUALIZED ENVIRONMENTS | June 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 32 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18340291 | USING RETIRED PAGES HISTORY FOR INSTRUCTION TRANSLATION LOOKASIDE BUFFER (TLB) PREFETCHING IN PROCESSOR-BASED DEVICES | June 2023 | February 2025 | Allow | 20 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 18190724 | Clock Domain Phase Adjustment for Memory Operations | March 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 32 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18164262 | Redundant Array of Independent Disks Card, Command Processing Method, and Storage Apparatus and System | February 2023 | February 2026 | Abandon | 45 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 18159686 | STORAGE DEVICE CONTROLLING GARBAGE COLLECTION OR WEAR LEVELING ON THE BASIS OF TIMESTAMP, AND METHOD THEREOF | January 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 32 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18090261 | SPARSITY COMPRESSION FOR INCREASED CACHE CAPACITY | December 2022 | November 2025 | Allow | 35 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 18056092 | HARDWARE-BASED POWER MANAGEMENT INTEGRATED CIRCUIT REGISTER FILE WRITE PROTECTION | November 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 39 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17820356 | BI-MODAL MEMORY IDLE HYSTERESIS FOR OPTIMAL ADD-IN CARD ACCELERATOR PERFORMANCE AND POWER | August 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17863300 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SEND LOG PAGE COMMANDS FOR PULL MODEL DEVICES | July 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 32 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16571367 | MULTI-TIER STORAGE AND MIRRORED VOLUMES | September 2019 | March 2021 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16457762 | SELECTION AND PLACEMENT OF VOLUMES IN A STORAGE SYSTEM USING STRIPES | June 2019 | February 2021 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15963034 | SELECTION AND PLACEMENT OF VOLUMES IN A STORAGE SYSTEM USING STRIPES | April 2018 | April 2019 | Allow | 12 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15903628 | USING AN EVENTUALLY CONSISTENT DISPERSED MEMORY TO IMPLEMENT STORAGE TIERS | February 2018 | July 2019 | Allow | 17 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15846880 | PARTIAL REBUILDING TECHNIQUES IN A DISPERSED STORAGE UNIT | December 2017 | May 2018 | Allow | 5 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15822834 | READ-ONLY TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER | November 2017 | June 2020 | Allow | 30 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 15439805 | INHIBITING TRACKS WITHIN A VOLUME OF A STORAGE SYSTEM | February 2017 | May 2020 | Allow | 39 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 15145178 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | May 2016 | February 2018 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15145560 | ESTIMATING FILE LEVEL INPUT/OUTPUT OPERATIONS PER SECOND (IOPS) | May 2016 | March 2018 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14937685 | SELECTION AND PLACEMENT OF VOLUMES IN A STORAGE SYSTEM USING STRIPES | November 2015 | February 2018 | Allow | 27 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14935996 | Data-Retention Controller/Driver for Stand-Alone or Hosted Card Reader, Solid-State-Drive (SSD), or Super-Enhanced-Endurance SSD (SEED) | November 2015 | April 2017 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14847855 | DETERMINISTICALLY SHARING A PLURALITY OF PROCESSING RESOURCES | September 2015 | October 2017 | Allow | 25 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14815081 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MIGRATING COMPONENTS IN A HIERARCHICAL STORAGE NETWORK | July 2015 | May 2016 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14761273 | VEHICLE DEVICE | July 2015 | November 2016 | Allow | 16 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14733908 | OBSTRUCTION-FREE DATA STRUCTURES AND MECHANISMS WITH SEPARABLE AND/OR SUBSTITUTABLE CONTENTION MANAGEMENT MECHANISMS | June 2015 | December 2015 | Allow | 6 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14269573 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ALLOCATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL RESOURCES | May 2014 | June 2015 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13970291 | DATA DURABILITY USING UN-ENCODED COPIES AND ENCODED COMBINATIONS | August 2013 | August 2017 | Allow | 48 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 13752292 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PRIORITIZING A CRAWL | January 2013 | July 2015 | Allow | 29 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13195785 | ADVANCED PROCESSOR TRANSLATION LOOKASIDE BUFFER MANAGEMENT IN A MULTITHREADED SYSTEM | August 2011 | October 2014 | Allow | 39 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13103041 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IMPLEMENTING CACHE COHERENCY OF A PROCESSOR | May 2011 | September 2015 | Allow | 53 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12753310 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INCREMENTAL BACKUP OF DATA VOLUMES | April 2010 | July 2017 | Allow | 60 | 11 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12582622 | ADVANCED PROCESSOR WITH FAST MESSAGING NETWORK TECHNOLOGY | October 2009 | June 2014 | Allow | 56 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12102034 | MEMORY SYSTEMS FOR AUTOMATED COMPUTING MACHINERY | April 2008 | July 2009 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11932896 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SEGMENTED SEQUENTIAL STORAGE | October 2007 | June 2015 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11863939 | USING DISASSOCIATED IMAGES FOR COMPUTER AND STORAGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT | September 2007 | July 2015 | Allow | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11739612 | APPARATUS AND METHOD TO STORE INFORMATION IN MULTIPLE HOLOGRAPHIC DATA STORAGE MEDIA | April 2007 | February 2010 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11789449 | APPARATUS, METHOD, AND PROGRAM FOR RECORDING | April 2007 | January 2010 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11552227 | Zone Boundary Adjustments for Defects in Non-Volatile Memories | October 2006 | January 2009 | Abandon | 27 | 10 | 0 | No | No |
| 11426047 | MEMORY SYSTEMS FOR AUTOMATED COMPUTING MACHINERY | June 2006 | July 2009 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11334831 | CONTENT ACCESS MEMORY (CAM) AS AN APPLICATION HARDWARE ACCELERATOR FOR SERVERS | January 2006 | March 2009 | Allow | 38 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 11333615 | DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM, CACHE SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PRECISELY FORMING AN INVALID COHERENCY STATE INDICATING A BROADCAST SCOPE | January 2006 | November 2008 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11109922 | DISK DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD FOR CACHE | April 2005 | January 2009 | Allow | 45 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 11094712 | ALLOCATING ENTITLED PROCESSOR CYCLES FOR PREEMPTED VIRTUAL PROCESSORS | March 2005 | June 2009 | Allow | 51 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10835768 | MEMORY ALLOCATOR FOR A MULTIPROCESSOR COMPUTER SYSTEM | April 2004 | July 2008 | Allow | 51 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 10779204 | METHOD, SYSTEM, AND APPARATUS FOR AN HIERARCHICAL CACHE LINE REPLACEMENT | February 2004 | January 2008 | Abandon | 47 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 10449442 | SUPERWORD MEMORY-ACCESS INSTRUCTIONS FOR DATA PROCESSOR | May 2003 | October 2009 | Allow | 60 | 10 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10331272 | CIRCUIT FOR GENERATING COLUMN SELECTION CONTROL SIGNAL IN MEMORY DEVICE | December 2002 | December 2005 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 10228036 | DUMPING USING LIMITED SYSTEM ADDRESS SPACE | August 2002 | December 2008 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10164200 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SELECTIVE CACHING OF TRANSACTIONS IN A COMPUTER SYSTEM | June 2002 | May 2005 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner TSAI, SHENG JEN.
With a 66.7% 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, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.
✓ 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 TSAI, SHENG JEN works in Art Unit 2139 and has examined 39 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 94.9%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.
Examiner TSAI, SHENG JEN's allowance rate of 94.9% places them in the 84% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by TSAI, SHENG JEN receive 3.62 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 95% 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 TSAI, SHENG JEN is 34 months. This places the examiner in the 43% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +8.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by TSAI, SHENG JEN. This interview benefit is in the 38% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 21.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 24% 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 25.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 33% 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.
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 57.1% of appeals filed. This is in the 30% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 85.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 87% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 7.7% of allowed cases (in the 90% 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.