Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18663992 | COMPUTER-BASED SYSTEMS CONFIGURED TO DECOUPLE DELIVERY OF PRODUCT CONFIGURATION CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH CONTINUOUS INTEGRATION/CONTINUOUS DELIVERY PROGRAMMING PIPELINES AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF | May 2024 | April 2025 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18430529 | DEPENDENCY MANAGEMENT IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT | February 2024 | February 2025 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18399960 | DIGITAL PROCESSING SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FACILITATING THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF APPLICATIONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH A SERVERLESS ENVIRONMENT | December 2023 | August 2024 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18388527 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS OF CONTROLLING DEPLOYMENT OF SOFTWARE BASED UPON AN APPLICATION RELIABILITY ANALYSIS | November 2023 | October 2024 | Allow | 11 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 18488485 | ORCHESTRATOR REPORTING OF PROBABILITY OF DOWNTIME FROM MACHINE LEARNING PROCESS | October 2023 | January 2025 | Allow | 15 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18475447 | SAMPLE-DIFFERENCE-BASED METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INTERPRETING DEEP-LEARNING MODEL FOR CODE CLASSIFICATION | September 2023 | May 2025 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18369827 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COORDINATING THE DEPLOYMENT OF COMPONENTS TO DEFINED USER GROUPS | September 2023 | February 2025 | Allow | 17 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18463638 | OPPORTUNISTIC SOFTWARE UPDATES DURING SELECT OPERATIONAL MODES | September 2023 | February 2025 | Allow | 17 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18457678 | PROVIDING METRIC DATA FOR PATTERNS USABLE IN A MODELING ENVIRONMENT | August 2023 | December 2024 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18238869 | DERIVING COMPONENT STATISTICS FOR A STREAM ENABLED APPLICATION | August 2023 | November 2024 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18234406 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONFIGURING PARAMETER FOR GRAPHIC PROGRAM | August 2023 | April 2025 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18214716 | OPTIMIZING BEHAVIOR AND DEPLOYMENT OF LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS | June 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18335035 | ROLE EXTENSIONS FOR PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES | June 2023 | April 2025 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18321489 | FRAMEWORK FOR UPGRADING FIRMWARE OF DISK ARRAY ENCLOSURES (DAES) | May 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18299988 | TESTING FOR TASKS ASSOCIATED WITH A CLOUD COMPUTING SERVERLESS FUNCTION | April 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18299737 | ELECTRONIC CONTROL APPARATUS, REPROGRAM EXECUTION METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | April 2023 | February 2025 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18132322 | DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM FOR IMAGE PROCESSING PIPELINES THAT USE MACHINE LEARNING WITH USER INTERFACE | April 2023 | April 2025 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18126218 | UTILIZING MULTIPLE ANALYSES TO MIGRATE AN APPLICATION TO A CLOUD COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT | March 2023 | November 2024 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18188786 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND FIRMWARE UPDATE METHOD | March 2023 | April 2025 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18113659 | PROVIDING ACCESS TO METADATA MODIFICATIONS TO FACILITATE SOFTWARE BUILD REPRODUCTION | February 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18099382 | PACKAGE GENERATION FOR CONFIGURING A WORKING ENVIRONMENT ON A SERVER INSTANCE | January 2023 | May 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18155714 | EFFICIENT FIRMWARE DOWNLOAD OPERATION IN STORAGE DEVICES | January 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18084962 | EXECUTING A CONTINUOUS INTEGRATION PIPELINE BASED ON A TYPE OF CHANGE TO SOURCE CODE | December 2022 | April 2025 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18081852 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CAPTURING TEST EXECUTION AND COMMUNICATION | December 2022 | April 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18073435 | USER INTERFACE FOR ON-DECK CAPABILITIES | December 2022 | December 2024 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17950461 | METHOD FOR FEEDBACK OF PROGRAM | September 2022 | January 2025 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17948513 | AUTOMATED SOFTWARE TESTING | September 2022 | October 2024 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17891289 | ON-DEMAND CONTEXTUAL TRACE LOG GENERATION | August 2022 | October 2024 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17889567 | GENERATING INTERFACING SOURCE CODE | August 2022 | September 2024 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17888688 | AUTOMATICALLY DEPLOYING A DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT ON A TARGET SYSTEM | August 2022 | November 2024 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17882769 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGING LIFE CYCLE ITERATION OF TEST CASE, AND MEDIUM | August 2022 | December 2024 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17881456 | BUILD SYSTEM SUPPORTING CODE AUDITS, CODE VERIFICATION, AND SOFTWARE FORENSICS | August 2022 | September 2024 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17855123 | APPLYING SERVICE LEVEL OBJECTIVES TO RELEASE PIPELINES | June 2022 | November 2024 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17851434 | USING A SEMANTIC TREE OF A COMPILER TO EXECUTE A SEMANTIC CODE QUERY AGAINST SOURCE CODE | June 2022 | August 2024 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17845340 | Computer-Implemented Method for Updating a Process Control System | June 2022 | September 2024 | Allow | 26 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17804067 | TECHNIQUES FOR CODE ISOLATION IN STATIC ANALYSIS OF APPLICATIONS USING APPLICATION FRAMEWORK | May 2022 | August 2024 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17698661 | METHODS, DEVICES, AND MEDIA FOR TWO-PASS SOURCE CODE TRANSFORMATION | March 2022 | August 2024 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17696739 | CONSOLE-BASED NO-CODE/LOW-CODE THEME MANAGEMENT FOR AUTHENTICATION JOURNEYS | March 2022 | January 2025 | Allow | 34 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17677315 | CONTROL DEVICE AND TERMINAL DEVICE | February 2022 | September 2024 | Allow | 31 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17589647 | HYBRID COMPILATION APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR QUANTUM-CLASSICAL CODE SEQUENCES | January 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 37 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16272532 | Reconstructing a High Level Compilable Program from an Instruction Trace | February 2019 | February 2020 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16105454 | Tracking Missing Data Using Provenance Traces and Data Simulation | August 2018 | April 2020 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15756570 | ASSEMBLING OPERATING SYSTEM VOLUMES | February 2018 | January 2020 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15576287 | SUPPORT DEVICE, METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM FOR SIMPLIFYING CONTROL PROGRAM CHANGING OPERATION | November 2017 | April 2020 | Allow | 29 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15480498 | SETTING SUPPORT PROGRAM, SETTING SUPPORT METHOD, AND SETTING SUPPORT DEVICE | April 2017 | January 2020 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14125263 | METHODS AND APPARATUS TO VALIDATE TRANSLATED GUEST CODE IN A DYNAMIC BINARY TRANSLATOR | December 2013 | August 2015 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14073002 | LICENSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | November 2013 | July 2015 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14053911 | DETECTING MERGE CONFLICTS AND COMPILATION ERRORS IN A COLLABORATIVE INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT | October 2013 | June 2015 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14012316 | HYBRID DEPENDENCY ANALYSIS USING DYNAMIC AND STATIC ANALYSES | August 2013 | October 2015 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13723669 | HYBRID DEPENDENCY ANALYSIS USING DYNAMIC AND STATIC ANALYSES | December 2012 | June 2014 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13579018 | DETERMINING DESTINATION CLOUD SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS | August 2012 | October 2015 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13570376 | IMAGE INSTANCE MAPPING | August 2012 | October 2014 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12958939 | REVERSIBLY INSTRUMENTING A COMPUTER SOFTWARE APPLICATION | December 2010 | August 2014 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12951730 | INTERACTIVE GRAPHICAL CONSTRUCTION OF PARAMETRIC COMPONENTS OF TYPICAL CROSS SECTION FRAMEWORKS | November 2010 | June 2014 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12915301 | STEP-TYPE OPERATION PROCESSING DURING DEBUGGING BY MACHINE INSTRUCTION STEPPING CONCURRENT WITH SETTING BREAKPOINTS | October 2010 | March 2014 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12878587 | VERIFYING PROGRAMMING ARTIFACTS GENERATED FROM ONTOLOGY ARTIFACTS OR MODELS | September 2010 | December 2013 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12583357 | Information processing apparatus and function expansion method | August 2009 | April 2014 | Allow | 56 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12485196 | TRACE CORRELATION FOR PROFILING SUBROUTINES | June 2009 | February 2015 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12332923 | CONFIGURABLE UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE BUILDING BLOCKS | December 2008 | June 2012 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12109935 | Method and Apparatus for Declarative Data Warehouse Definition for Object-Relational Mapped Objects | April 2008 | January 2015 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12039781 | Viral trace | February 2008 | March 2015 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11339592 | Method for partitioning programs between a general purpose core and one or more accelerators | January 2006 | January 2015 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner APONTE, FRANCISCO JAVIER.
With a 50.0% 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, 50.0% 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 APONTE, FRANCISCO JAVIER works in Art Unit 2151 and has examined 60 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 26 months.
Examiner APONTE, FRANCISCO JAVIER's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 98% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by APONTE, FRANCISCO JAVIER receive 1.52 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 37% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by APONTE, FRANCISCO JAVIER is 26 months. This places the examiner in the 60% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by APONTE, FRANCISCO JAVIER. This interview benefit is in the 10% 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, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 97% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 76.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 94% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 60.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 30% percentile among all examiners. 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, 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 10% 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.