Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18845007 | COMPLEX NETWORK COGNITION-BASED FEDERATED REINFORCEMENT LEARNING END-TO-END AUTONOMOUS DRIVING CONTROL SYSTEM, METHOD, AND VEHICULAR DEVICE | September 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17771954 | INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | April 2022 | August 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17628485 | LEARNING DEVICE, INFERENCE DEVICE, LEARNING METHOD, INFERENCE METHOD, AND LEARNING PROGRAM | January 2022 | August 2025 | Abandon | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17482480 | SPIKING NEURON CIRCUITS AND METHODS | September 2021 | November 2025 | Abandon | 50 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17406458 | DEEP LEARNING NETWORK DEVICE, MEMORY ACCESS METHOD AND NON-VOLATILE STORAGE MEDIUM | August 2021 | December 2025 | Abandon | 52 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17380238 | FAST AND ACCURATE PREDICTION METHODS AND SYSTEMS BASED ON ANALYTICAL MODELS | July 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 50 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17362591 | SYSTEM FOR COMPUTATIONAL RESOURCE PREDICTION AND SUBSEQUENT WORKLOAD PROVISIONING | June 2021 | January 2026 | Abandon | 55 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17358167 | AN INFERENCE DEVICE AND METHOD FOR REDUCING THE MEMORY USAGE IN A WEIGHT MATRIX | June 2021 | April 2025 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17337002 | DATA ANALYTICS FOR MORE-INFORMED REPAIR OF A MECHANICAL OR ELECTROMECHANICAL SYSTEM | June 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 53 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17190642 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CLIPPING NEURAL NETWORKS AND PERFORMING CONVOLUTION | March 2021 | January 2026 | Abandon | 58 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17191032 | INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | March 2021 | August 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17183690 | MACHINE LEARNING PIPELINE SKELETON INSTANTIATION | February 2021 | October 2024 | Abandon | 44 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17167842 | ACTOR ENSEMBLE FOR CONTINUOUS CONTROL | February 2021 | January 2026 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17247518 | TRANSFERRING LEARNING IN CLASSIFIER-BASED SENSING SYSTEMS | December 2020 | November 2025 | Abandon | 59 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner PHUNG, QUOC LY PHU works in Art Unit 2143 and has examined 11 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 27.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 53 months.
Examiner PHUNG, QUOC LY PHU's allowance rate of 27.3% places them in the 4% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by PHUNG, QUOC LY PHU receive 2.18 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 60% 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 PHUNG, QUOC LY PHU is 53 months. This places the examiner in the 3% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +100.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by PHUNG, QUOC LY PHU. This interview benefit is in the 100% 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, 33.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 72% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
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.
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 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.
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.