USPTO Examiner NABI REZA U - Art Unit 2142

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18957784SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING A VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF AN EXECUTION SEQUENCE WITHIN A GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACENovember 2024January 2025Allow200YesNo
18677665Devices, Methods, and Graphical User Interfaces for Providing Haptic FeedbackMay 2024January 2025Allow800NoNo
18609698AUGMENTED REALITY BEAUTY PRODUCT TUTORIALSMarch 2024October 2024Allow700YesNo
18432228INTELLIGENT MANIPULATION OF DYNAMIC DECLARATIVE INTERFACESFebruary 2024February 2025Allow1210YesNo
18407048CONFIGURABLE DEPLOYMENT OF DATA SCIENCE MODELSJanuary 2024August 2024Allow700YesNo
18402242A METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING PRODUCT SIMILARITY IN DIGITAL DOMAINSJanuary 2024August 2024Allow800YesNo
18497890SPECIAL LOCK MODE USER INTERFACEOctober 2023August 2024Allow1000YesNo
18485950TRAINING TEXT SUMMARIZATION NEURAL NETWORKS WITH AN EXTRACTED SEGMENTS PREDICTION OBJECTIVEOctober 2023September 2024Allow1110NoNo
18264253INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE AND INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAMAugust 2023May 2025Allow2100YesNo
18360867CONTROLLED SCREEN SHARINGJuly 2023April 2025Allow2000YesNo
18222569SIMPLIFIED SHARING OF CONTENT AMONG COMPUTING DEVICESJuly 2023July 2024Allow1210YesNo
18352015Presenting Output To Indicate A Communication Attempt During A Communication SessionJuly 2023July 2024Allow1310YesNo
18200241DISPLAY APPARATUS, USER TERMINAL, CONTROL METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUMMay 2023March 2025Allow2210YesNo
18139708METHOD, COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT, AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING AN ENERGY MAPApril 2023February 2025Allow2210NoNo
18173011IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS AND INPUT DEVICEFebruary 2023March 2025Allow2510NoNo
18106215PROMPTED TEXT-TO-IMAGE GENERATIONFebruary 2023July 2024Allow1820YesNo
18096441Monitoring and Management of Wearable DevicesJanuary 2023November 2024Allow2200NoNo
17751519Devices, Methods, and Graphical User Interfaces for Providing Haptic FeedbackMay 2022December 2024Abandon3020YesNo
17564706CLINICAL TRIAL MATCHING SYSTEM USING INFERRED BIOMARKER STATUSDecember 2021October 2024Allow3400YesNo
17522920BASE MUTATION DETECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS BASED ON SEQUENCING DATA, AND STORAGE MEDIUMNovember 2021February 2025Allow3900NoNo
17606050METHOD FOR SIMULATING STOCHASTIC OSCILLATION IN INDIVIDUAL-GRANULARITY LONG-DISTANCE EXPRESSWAY TRAFFIC FLOW USING QUANTUM HARMONIC OSCILLATOROctober 2021March 2025Allow4100YesNo
17508544Quantifying User ExperienceOctober 2021February 2025Allow4000YesNo
17451270CROSS-TEMPORAL ENCODING MACHINE LEARNING MODELSOctober 2021January 2025Allow3900YesNo
17500645METHOD OF TRAINING ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK AND METHOD OF EVALUATING PRONUNCIATION USING THE METHODOctober 2021November 2024Allow3700YesNo
17494055NEURO-SYMBOLIC REINFORCEMENT LEARNING WITH FIRST-ORDER LOGICOctober 2021January 2025Allow3900NoNo
17489458SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING A CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORK TO DETECT CONTAMINATIONSeptember 2021January 2025Allow3900NoNo
17477771SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR LABEL GENERATION FOR TIMESERIES CLASSIFICATIONSeptember 2021December 2024Allow3900YesNo
17466156ADAPTIVE MODEL FOR VEHICLE PROCESSING OF IMAGESSeptember 2021November 2024Allow3800YesNo
17402803METHOD, DEVICE, AND PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR PROCESSING SAMPLE DATA IN INTERNET OF THINGS ENVIRONMENTAugust 2021November 2024Allow3900YesNo
17397653SPARSITY-AWARE COMPUTE-IN-MEMORYAugust 2021December 2024Allow4100YesNo
17373896INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAMJuly 2021March 2025Abandon4410NoNo
17359862MACHINE LEARNING MODEL SCENARIO-BASED TRAINING SYSTEMJune 2021October 2024Allow3900YesNo
17304577METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR TRAINING MODEL TO PERFORM LINK PREDICTION IN KNOWLEDGE HYPERGRAPHJune 2021September 2024Allow3900NoNo
17345730Learning Mahalanobis Distance Metrics from DataJune 2021March 2025Allow4510NoNo
17322550INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUMMay 2021April 2025Abandon4620NoNo
17233600DETERMINING COMPONENT CONTRIBUTIONS OF TIME-SERIES MODELApril 2021July 2024Allow3900YesNo
17180720ARITHMETIC PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND ARITHMETIC PROCESSING METHODFebruary 2021March 2025Abandon4910NoNo
17155896BRANCHING OPERATION FOR NEURAL PROCESSOR CIRCUITJanuary 2021September 2024Allow4410YesNo
17143769PIPELINED MACHINE LEARNING FRAMEWORKSJanuary 2021February 2025Allow4920YesNo
17139800APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR BOUNDARY LEARNING OPTIMIZATIONDecember 2020July 2024Allow4310NoNo
17105204COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR CANCER DETECTION AND CLASSIFICATION USING NEURAL NETWORKSNovember 2020December 2024Abandon4810NoNo
16949958CONVERTING QUASI-AFFINE EXPRESSIONS TO MATRIX OPERATIONSNovember 2020August 2024Allow4520YesNo
17039447META-Q LEARNINGSeptember 2020September 2024Allow4830YesNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner NABI, REZA U - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner NABI, REZA U works in Art Unit 2142 and has examined 25 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 84.0%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 40 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner NABI, REZA U's allowance rate of 84.0% places them in the 59% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by NABI, REZA U receive 0.60 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 3% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by NABI, REZA U is 40 months. This places the examiner in the 23% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +40.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by NABI, REZA U. 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 97% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 0% 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.

Petition Practice

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 Cooperation and Flexibility

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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • RCEs are effective: This examiner has a high allowance rate after RCE compared to others. If you receive a final rejection and have substantive amendments or arguments, an RCE is likely to be successful.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.