Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16973628 | ADAPTIVE ZONE MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL WITH A GLUCOSE AND VELOCITY DEPENDENT DYNAMIC COST FUNCTION FOR AN ARTIFICIAL PANCREAS | December 2020 | June 2024 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17065416 | INTERACTIVE COMPONENTS FOR USER COLLABORATION | October 2020 | May 2024 | Allow | 43 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17001306 | SMART DEVICE CONFIGURATION GUIDANCE VIA AUTOMATED ASSISTANT INTERFACE OF SEPARATE CLIENT DEVICE | August 2020 | December 2023 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15930936 | ROW-LEVEL WORKSHEET SECURITY | May 2020 | August 2024 | Abandon | 51 | 10 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16363997 | TECHNIQUES FOR ANALYZING COMMAND USAGE OF SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS | March 2019 | January 2024 | Allow | 58 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16265521 | MULTI-FACTOR AUTHENTICATION FOR VIRTUAL REALITY | February 2019 | April 2024 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner OKASHA, RAMI RAFAT.
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.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner OKASHA, RAMI RAFAT works in Art Unit 2144 and has examined 6 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 83.3%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 51 months.
Examiner OKASHA, RAMI RAFAT's allowance rate of 83.3% places them in the 59% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by OKASHA, RAMI RAFAT receive 5.33 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 99% 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 OKASHA, RAMI RAFAT is 51 months. This places the examiner in the 6% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -20.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by OKASHA, RAMI RAFAT. This interview benefit is in the 2% 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, 10.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 6% 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 14.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 16% 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 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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 88% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
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.