Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18817421 | HANDLING LOOKUP REQUESTS FOR STORAGE CIRCUITRY | August 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 17 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18807445 | USER CONFIGURABLE SLC MEMORY SIZE | August 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18788456 | SELECTIVELY DISABLING MEMORY DEVICES | July 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 17 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18786271 | DCF SUPPORTED TRUSTWORTHY DATA CACHING IN EDGE ENVIRONMENTS | July 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 16 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18783844 | AUTHENTICATION-BASED AND HARDWARE-BASED LOCKDOWN FEATURES FOR A MEMORY SYSTEM | July 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 15 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18778907 | STORAGE DEVICE CACHE SYSTEM WITH MACHINE LEARNING | July 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 15 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18637205 | STORING SENSITIVE DATA SECURELY IN A MULTI-CLOUD ENVIRONMENT | April 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18635749 | CXL DEVICE, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND DATA STORING METHOD | April 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18590543 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING DISTRIBUTED MEMORY CONFIGURATION BITS IN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS | February 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18110434 | SECURE PROGRAMMING OF ONE-TIME-PROGRAMMABLE (OTP) MEMORY | February 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17411329 | CONSERVING BANDWIDTH USING EFFICIENT RELOCATION OF DATA BETWEEN STORAGE DEVICES | August 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 50 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16686338 | MEMORY CONTROLLERS FOR SOLID-STATE STORAGE DEVICES | November 2019 | September 2021 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16449498 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM FOR AVOIDING ACCIDENTAL DATA DELETION DURING DATA MIGRATION | June 2019 | July 2020 | Allow | 13 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15938895 | WRITING DATA TO TAPE MEDIUM | March 2018 | December 2020 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15074265 | FILTERING SNOOP TRAFFIC IN A MULTIPROCESSOR COMPUTING SYSTEM | March 2016 | December 2016 | Allow | 9 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14892220 | Generating a Second Code from a First Code | November 2015 | January 2019 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14946615 | Storage Control Apparatus and Computer-Readable Recording Medium Storing Program for Removing Prefetches to Storage Devices Currently in Power-Saving Mode | November 2015 | April 2017 | Allow | 17 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14869850 | DESIGN STRUCTURE FOR REDUCING POWER CONSUMPTION FOR MEMORY DEVICE | September 2015 | November 2017 | Allow | 26 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 14696192 | IMPLEMENTING DRAM ROW HAMMER AVOIDANCE | April 2015 | June 2019 | Allow | 50 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14135669 | CONFIGURE STORAGE CLASS MEMORY COMMAND | December 2013 | March 2016 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13772204 | REDUCING EFFECTIVE CYCLE TIME IN ACCESSING MEMORY MODULES | February 2013 | December 2015 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13771464 | FILTERING SNOOP TRAFFIC IN A MULTIPROCESSOR COMPUTING SYSTEM | February 2013 | January 2016 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13718674 | CLEARING BLOCKS OF STORAGE CLASS MEMORY | December 2012 | August 2014 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13531902 | FAST COPY USING FILE SYSTEM BLOCK MAPPINGS | June 2012 | March 2019 | Allow | 60 | 10 | 0 | No | No |
| 13154294 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF OPTIMIZATION OF IN-MEMORY DATA GRID PLACEMENT | June 2011 | March 2016 | Allow | 57 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11192106 | FRAME TRANSFER METHOD AND APPARATUS | July 2005 | June 2009 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11123993 | DATA STORAGE METHODS FOR HIERARCHICAL COPIES | May 2005 | February 2009 | Allow | 45 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner VERDERAMO III, RALPH A.
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 VERDERAMO III, RALPH A works in Art Unit 2139 and has examined 17 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 34 months.
Examiner VERDERAMO III, RALPH A'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 VERDERAMO III, RALPH A receive 2.88 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 84% 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 VERDERAMO III, RALPH A 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 +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by VERDERAMO III, RALPH A. 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, 21.1% 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 33.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 49% 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.
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 5.9% of allowed cases (in the 87% 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 11.8% of allowed cases (in the 90% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.
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.