Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19001635 | METHODS FOR TRAINING AN INDUSTRIAL QUESTION-ANSWERING MODEL BASED ON REINFORCEMENT LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE BASE MATCHING | December 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 11 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18320317 | SMALL FORM FACTOR CHECK IN COMPUTE DEVICE | May 2023 | March 2026 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18130928 | Intrinsic Biasing Method for a Dual DC/DC Converter | April 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18006874 | HADOOP DISTRIBUTED FILE SYSTEM (HDFS) EXPRESS BULK FILE DELETION | January 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17815025 | METHOD FOR TRAINING A NEURAL NETWORK | July 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17831338 | TRAINING NEURAL NETWORKS USING LEARNED OPTIMIZERS | June 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17432987 | DETERMINATION DIFFERENCE DISPLAY APPARATUS, DETERMINATION DIFFERENCE DISPLAY METHOD, AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM | August 2021 | March 2026 | Abandon | 54 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12170646 | MODEL-BASED RESOURCE ALLOCATION | July 2008 | September 2012 | Allow | 50 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11561394 | BUSINESS-SEMANTIC-AWARE INFORMATION LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT | November 2006 | May 2009 | Allow | 30 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10393852 | CLASSIFICATION OF DATA FOR INSERTION INTO A DATABASE | March 2003 | September 2006 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10394324 | LOCATION OF OBJECTS/SERVICES IN A DISTRIBUTED OBJECTS/SERVICES SYSTEM | March 2003 | November 2006 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 0 | Yes | 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 SAEED, USMAAN works in Art Unit 2146 and has examined 5 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 80.0%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 44 months.
Examiner SAEED, USMAAN's allowance rate of 80.0% places them in the 49% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by SAEED, USMAAN receive 2.40 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 69% 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 SAEED, USMAAN is 44 months. This places the examiner in the 14% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 28.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 52% 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 50.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 75% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 20.0% of allowed cases (in the 98% 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.