Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17139561 | LOAD BALANCING USING DATA-EFFICIENT LEARNING | December 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17132841 | RANKING CHATBOT PROFILES | December 2020 | February 2025 | Allow | 50 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16944919 | SHARED VOLUME COMPUTING ARCHITECTURE OF A VIRTUAL REALITY ENVIRONMENT AND RELATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS | July 2020 | February 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 15296719 | Apparatus and Method for Monitoring and Control on a Network | October 2016 | January 2019 | Allow | 27 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15166616 | MOBILE TERMINAL AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE SAME | May 2016 | September 2019 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14970270 | SEQUENTIAL RECOMMENDER SYSTEM FOR VIRTUALIZED NETWORK SERVICES | December 2015 | July 2019 | Allow | 43 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14480928 | Method and System for Filtering Movements Between Virtual Environments | September 2014 | October 2017 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14029082 | DYNAMIC HYPERLINKING APPROACH | September 2013 | December 2015 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13663017 | COMMUNICATION SYSTEM AND METHOD OF USE THEREOF | October 2012 | June 2013 | Allow | 8 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13620810 | RECORDING EVENTS IN A VIRTUAL WORLD | September 2012 | June 2015 | Allow | 33 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13612134 | ENHANCED TELEPHONY COMPUTER USER INTERFACE ALLOWING USER INTERACTION AND CONTROL OF A TELEPHONE USING A PERSONAL COMPUTER | September 2012 | November 2013 | Allow | 14 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13073908 | Systems and Methods for Gesture Lock Obfuscation | March 2011 | August 2016 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13014593 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING OBJECTS | January 2011 | June 2015 | Allow | 53 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12953054 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR BROWSER-BASED SCREEN SHARING | November 2010 | September 2016 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12751138 | MOBILE TERMINAL AND CONTROLLING METHOD THEREOF | March 2010 | April 2016 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12622205 | RECORDING EVENTS IN A VIRTUAL WORLD | November 2009 | September 2012 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12617161 | PROVIDING ACCESS FOR BLIND USERS ON KIOSKS | November 2009 | September 2014 | Allow | 58 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12549644 | INTELLIGENT SELF-ENABLED SOLUTION DISCOVERY | August 2009 | May 2012 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12549569 | Method and System for Filtering Movements Between Virtual Environments | August 2009 | September 2014 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12241035 | MULTIPLE SHELL MULTI FACETED GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE | September 2008 | June 2013 | Allow | 57 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12099914 | DISPLAY CONTROL APPARATUS AND DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD | April 2008 | April 2013 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 12099941 | DISPLAY CONTROLLER, DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD, DISPLAY CONTROL PROGRAM, AND PORTABLE TERMINAL DEVICE | April 2008 | April 2014 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 11956799 | MANAGING ICON INTEGRITY | December 2007 | March 2012 | Allow | 51 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11848378 | GENERATING AND ORGANIZING REFERENCES TO ONLINE CONTENT | August 2007 | November 2011 | Allow | 51 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11848657 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING SET TOP BOX ASSISTANCE | August 2007 | December 2014 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11897803 | Nested user interfaces for multiple displays | August 2007 | February 2014 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11763461 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR DISPLAYING VARIABLE-SIZED, GROUPED DISPLAY INFORMATION ON TOUCH SCREEN | June 2007 | July 2012 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11692208 | User Interface For Variable Access Control System | March 2007 | March 2014 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11704543 | Smart video thumbnail | February 2007 | May 2013 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11438520 | DYNAMIC HYPERLINKING APPROACH | May 2006 | May 2013 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10915496 | METHOD AND CODE MODULE FOR FACILITATING NAVIGATION BETWEEN WEBPAGES | August 2004 | March 2012 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10822444 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONSTRUCTING REPRESENTATIONS OF OBJECTS AND ENTITIES | April 2004 | April 2012 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10724950 | Architecture for controlling a computer using hand gestures | December 2003 | October 2013 | Allow | 60 | 12 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10602425 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING INTEGRATED HOT KEY CONFIGURATION | June 2003 | May 2011 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner NUNEZ, JORDANY.
With a 66.7% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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, 57.1% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
✓ 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 is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner NUNEZ, JORDANY works in Art Unit 2145 and has examined 34 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 94.1%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 58 months.
Examiner NUNEZ, JORDANY's allowance rate of 94.1% places them in the 82% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by NUNEZ, JORDANY receive 3.44 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 91% 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 NUNEZ, JORDANY is 58 months. This places the examiner in the 2% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +2.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by NUNEZ, JORDANY. This interview benefit is in the 25% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 28.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 56% 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 12.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 14% 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, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 94% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 70.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 56% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 14.3% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows above-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. The mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) provides an opportunity for reconsideration.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 150.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 97% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 2.9% of allowed cases (in the 80% 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 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.