Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16251058 | Apparatuses, methods and Systems for Automated Online Data Submission | January 2019 | January 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 15706412 | RELATIONAL DATABASE RECOVERY | September 2017 | November 2017 | Allow | 2 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15366523 | DYNAMIC COMBINATION OF PROCESSES FOR SUB-QUERIES | December 2016 | April 2017 | Allow | 5 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15366712 | DYNAMIC COMBINATION OF PROCESSES FOR SUB-QUERIES | December 2016 | April 2017 | Allow | 5 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15362857 | RELATIONAL DATABASE RECOVERY | November 2016 | June 2017 | Allow | 7 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15293704 | MANAGING FILE CHANGES MADE DURING A REVIEW PROCESS | October 2016 | March 2017 | Allow | 5 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15265890 | MANAGING FILE CHANGES MADE DURING A REVIEW PROCESS | September 2016 | March 2017 | Allow | 6 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15194935 | OPTIMIZING RELATIONAL DATABASE QUERIES WITH MULTI-TABLE PREDICATE EXPRESSIONS | June 2016 | October 2017 | Allow | 15 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15184038 | RELATIONAL DATABASE RECOVERY | June 2016 | September 2016 | Allow | 3 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15067560 | DYNAMIC COMBINATION OF PROCESSES FOR SUB-QUERIES | March 2016 | October 2016 | Allow | 7 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15004967 | RANGING SCALABLE TIME STAMP DATA SYNCHRONIZATION | January 2016 | November 2016 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14977473 | DYNAMIC SEMANTIC MODELS HAVING MULTIPLE INDICES | December 2015 | October 2016 | Allow | 9 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14419700 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR STORING A FILE ON A PLURALITY OF SERVERS | February 2015 | May 2018 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14553152 | OPTIMIZING RELATIONAL DATABASE QUERIES WITH MULTI-TABLE PREDICATE EXPRESSIONS | November 2014 | October 2016 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14551591 | INFERRED OPERATIONS FOR DATA ANALYSIS | November 2014 | November 2016 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14472296 | DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATION METHOD, AND DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM | August 2014 | September 2016 | Allow | 24 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14270419 | OPTIMIZING RELATIONAL DATABASE QUERIES WITH MULTI-TABLE PREDICATE EXPRESSIONS | May 2014 | May 2016 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13936451 | Predicting Object Identity Using An Ensemble of Predictors | July 2013 | August 2017 | Allow | 50 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13801724 | PRESERVING REDUNDANCY IN DATA DEDUPLICATION SYSTEMS BY DESIGNATION OF VIRTUAL DEVICE | March 2013 | July 2018 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | No | No |
| 13816134 | TREE COMPARISON TO MANAGE PROGRESSIVE DATA STORE SWITCHOVER WITH ASSURED PERFORMANCE | February 2013 | March 2015 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13816075 | Entropy Coding and Decoding Using Polar Codes | February 2013 | June 2016 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13568642 | INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC DOCUMENT INDEX GENERATION | August 2012 | September 2015 | Allow | 37 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13553129 | MANAGING INFORMATION ASSETS USING FEEDBACK RE-ENFORCED SEARCH AND NAVIGATION | July 2012 | October 2016 | Allow | 51 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13532221 | ORDERING IMAGE SEARCH RESULTS | June 2012 | June 2013 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13458805 | GENERATING CANDIDATE ENTITIES USING OVER FREQUENT KEYS | April 2012 | August 2014 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13457093 | NESTING LEVEL | April 2012 | January 2017 | Allow | 56 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13453270 | PRESERVING REDUNDANCY IN DATA DEDUPLICATION SYSTEMS BY DESIGNATION OF VIRTUAL DEVICE | April 2012 | July 2018 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | No | No |
| 13284260 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING JOB CANDIDATES | October 2011 | August 2013 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13043214 | DETECTING APPLICATION SIMILARITY | March 2011 | January 2017 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12980770 | DYNAMIC CONTENT DISCOVERABILITY | December 2010 | May 2017 | Allow | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12957602 | FUZZY CLUSTERING OF OCEANIC PROFILES | December 2010 | June 2013 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12754537 | SPACE-EFFICIENT, REVISION-TOLERANT DATA DE-DUPLICATION | April 2010 | April 2014 | Allow | 49 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12688204 | ORDERING OF RANKED DOCUMENTS | January 2010 | October 2012 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12567591 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DATA RECOVERY USING BIT LOGGING | September 2009 | February 2013 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12454851 | Deleting Content In A Distributed Computing Environment | May 2009 | February 2014 | Allow | 57 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12415477 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONDUCTING A PROFILE BASED SEARCH | March 2009 | August 2016 | Allow | 60 | 12 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12415499 | EXTENDING COLLABORATION CAPABILITIES TO EXTERNAL DATA | March 2009 | September 2012 | Allow | 41 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12413502 | CALCULATING WEB PAGE IMPORTANCE | March 2009 | April 2011 | Allow | 24 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12394572 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AN EFFICIENT QUERY SORT OF A DATA STREAM WITH DUPLICATE KEY VALUES | February 2009 | August 2015 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11868981 | DEVICE, METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR GENERATING WEB FEEDS | October 2007 | November 2013 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11696784 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MANAGING DIGITAL CONTENTS DISTRIBUTED OVER NETWORK | April 2007 | August 2015 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11372540 | Generating code for an integrated data system | March 2006 | December 2016 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner PARK, GRACE A.
With a 40.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is above the USPTO average, indicating that appeals have better success here than typical.
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, 28.6% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable 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 shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner PARK, GRACE A works in Art Unit 2144 and has examined 42 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 33 months.
Examiner PARK, GRACE A's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 93% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by PARK, GRACE A receive 2.83 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 79% 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 PARK, GRACE A is 33 months. This places the examiner in the 46% 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 PARK, GRACE 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, 23.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 34% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 20.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 26% 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 58.3% of appeals filed. This is in the 33% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 28.6% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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, 14.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 8% 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.