Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18980968 | DATABASE SYNCHRONIZATION USING RESIZABLE INVERTIBLE BLOOM FILTERS WITH DATABASE SNAPSHOTS | December 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18902264 | Method and System for Estimating the Cardinality of Information | September 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18825209 | DATA REPLICATION SYSTEM AND DATA REPLICATION METHOD | September 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18819140 | Social Media Maintenance System and Method | August 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18787897 | Utilizing Replication Tags Associated With Messages To Determine Destinations For Streaming The Messages | July 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18786352 | AUTOMATED CORRECTION OF ATTRIBUTES USING MACHINE-LEARNED LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS (LLMS) | July 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18785763 | DECLARATIVE COMPUTER FRAMEWORK SIGNAL PROPAGATION | July 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18664548 | SCALABLE COLLECTIONS WITHIN A BALANCED CHUNKED TREE DATA STRUCTURE | May 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18648055 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HIGHLY AVAILABLE DATABASE SERVICE | April 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 14 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18611521 | SYSTEM AND METHOD SUPPORTING LOG ANALYTICS OR OTHER LOG-RELATED FUNCTIONS ACROSS MULTIPLE SYSTEMS | March 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 20 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18427339 | Scalable Mapping for Database Extent Storage on Physical Nodes | January 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18453127 | CONTEXT-AWARE RELEVANCE MODELING IN CONVERSATIONAL SYSTEMS | August 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 29 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18355022 | COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGING AND UPDATING REGULATORY DIGITAL TEXTUAL DOCUMENTS | July 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16414953 | PERFORMING LOGICAL VALIDATION ON LOADED DATA IN A DATABASE | May 2019 | May 2021 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16151054 | SCALABLE AND BALANCED DISTRIBUTION OF ASYNCHRONOUS OPERATIONS IN DATA REPLICATION SYSTEMS | October 2018 | March 2021 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15830163 | MANAGING BIG DATA ON DOCUMENT BASED NoSQL DATABASES | December 2017 | July 2020 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15828277 | DYNAMIC AND ADAPTIVE CONTENT PROCESSING IN CLOUD BASED CONTENT HUB | November 2017 | June 2020 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15091689 | DATA WAREHOUSE MODEL VALIDATION | April 2016 | October 2019 | Allow | 43 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15012179 | METHOD TO DELAY LOCKING OF SERVER FILES ON EDIT | February 2016 | November 2016 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14816563 | FORMING CROWDS AND PROVIDING ACCESS TO CROWD DATA IN A MOBILE ENVIRONMENT | August 2015 | December 2016 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14811706 | PREVENTING PAUSES IN ALGORITHMS REQUIRING PRE-IMAGE INFORMATION CONCERNING MODIFICATIONS DURING DATA REPLICATION | July 2015 | March 2017 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14690578 | COMPARISON OF CHARACTER STRINGS | April 2015 | August 2016 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14673616 | Process Control Method With Integrated Database For Electronically Documenting The Configuration, Modification And Operation Of A Controlled Process | March 2015 | March 2017 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14617531 | INFORMATION-PROCESSING APPARATUS, METHOD, SYSTEM, COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATICALLY RECORDING OR RECOMMENDING CONTENT | February 2015 | September 2016 | Allow | 19 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14591294 | PERFORMING LOGICAL VALIDATION ON LOADED DATA IN A DATABASE | January 2015 | March 2019 | Allow | 50 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14480517 | DYNAMIC CATEGORIZATIONS FOR ELECTRONIC ADVERTISING | September 2014 | April 2016 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14271495 | MANAGEMENT OF PARALLEL USER INPUTS IN ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS | May 2014 | September 2019 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14271538 | HYBRID DATA BACKUP IN A NETWORKED COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT | May 2014 | April 2015 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13928642 | Enhanced Document Input Parsing | June 2013 | May 2016 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13754780 | Document Classification And Characterization Using Human Judgment, Tiered Similarity Analysis And Language/Concept Analysis | January 2013 | June 2019 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13723427 | FILTERING POSTS | December 2012 | January 2015 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13621080 | DYNAMIC CATEGORIZATIONS FOR ELECTRONIC ADVERTISING | September 2012 | May 2014 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13614335 | INTERESTINGNESS OF DATA | September 2012 | May 2014 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13563654 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING NOTIFICATIONS RELATED TO NEW MEDIA | July 2012 | January 2016 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13562244 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING MEDIA-RELATED NOTIFICATIONS | July 2012 | January 2017 | Allow | 53 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13103814 | PROCESS CONTROL METHOD WITH INTEGRATED DATABASE FOR ELECTRONICALLY DOCUMENTING THE CONFIGURATION, MODIFICATION AND OPERATION OF A CONTROLLED PROCESS | May 2011 | December 2014 | Allow | 43 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12744809 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CLASSIFICATION AND RETRIEVAL OF CHINESE-TYPE CHARACTERS AND CHARACTER COMPONENTS | May 2010 | December 2012 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12749972 | RANKING OF SEARCH RESULTS BASED ON MICROBLOG DATA | March 2010 | February 2014 | Allow | 46 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 12404354 | METHODS FOR GENERATING A PERSONALIZED LIST OF DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH A SEARCH QUERY | March 2009 | September 2012 | Allow | 42 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12364041 | SEMANTIC SEARCH VIA ROLE LABELING | February 2009 | December 2012 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12241944 | APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING MDX POST-ORDER HIERARCHIZE EXPRESSIONS | September 2008 | July 2011 | Allow | 33 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12212794 | CLASSIFICATION OF DATA IN A HIERARCHICAL DATA STRUCTURE | September 2008 | June 2012 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12193542 | REPORT DATABASE DEPENDENCY TRACING THROUGH BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE METADATA | August 2008 | June 2014 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12192917 | AUTOMATICALLY EXTRACTING BY-LINE INFORMATION | August 2008 | June 2012 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11868498 | DYNAMIC DISTRIBUTION OF CONTENT | October 2007 | December 2010 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11806832 | METHOD, APPARATUS AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR MANAGING THE PROCESSING OF EXTRACTED DATA | June 2007 | July 2010 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11006446 | METHOD AND/OR SYSTEM FOR TAGGING TREES | December 2004 | March 2010 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10874921 | IMPACT ANALYSIS IN AN OBJECT MODEL | June 2004 | January 2009 | Allow | 55 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10821949 | A METHOD, SYSTEM, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR PROCESSING AND CONVERTING ELECTRONICALLY-STORED DATA FOR ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY AND SUPPORT OF LITIGATION USING A PROCESSOR-BASED DEVICE LOCATED AT A USER-SITE | April 2004 | March 2010 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10791897 | DOCUMENT CLUSTERING METHOD AND APPARATUS BASED ON COMMON INFORMATION OF DOCUMENTS | March 2004 | October 2008 | Allow | 56 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10786863 | RELATIONAL MODEL FOR MANAGEMENT INFORMATION IN NETWORK DEVICES | February 2004 | September 2011 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10484333 | CANDIDATE SYNONYM SUPPORT DEVICE FOR GENERATING CANDIDATE SYNONYMS THAT CAN HANDLE ABBREVIATIONS, MISPELLINGS, AND THE LIKE | January 2004 | September 2006 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10726345 | Systems and methods for improved searching | December 2003 | April 2013 | Allow | 60 | 11 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10670068 | METHOD FOR DOCUMENT-SEARCHING | September 2003 | October 2008 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10391118 | ACCESS CONCURRENCY FOR CACHED AUTHORIZATION INFORMATION IN RELATIONAL DATABASE SYSTEMS | March 2003 | January 2011 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10376716 | Method to delay locking of server files on edit | February 2003 | November 2013 | Allow | 60 | 17 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10376873 | METHOD FOR MANAGING MULTIPLE FILE STATES FOR REPLICATED FILES | February 2003 | December 2010 | Allow | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10348423 | SELECTION BINS FOR BROWSING, ANNOTATING, SORTING, CLUSTERING, AND FILTERING MEDIA OBJECTS | January 2003 | January 2009 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner PHAM, MICHAEL.
With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.
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.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner PHAM, MICHAEL works in Art Unit 2153 and has examined 45 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 97.8%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.
Examiner PHAM, MICHAEL's allowance rate of 97.8% places them in the 89% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by PHAM, MICHAEL receive 3.51 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 94% 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 PHAM, MICHAEL is 42 months. This places the examiner in the 18% 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 PHAM, MICHAEL. This interview benefit is in the 7% 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, 26.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 42% 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 23.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 31% 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, 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 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 48% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 50.0% 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, 75.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 80% 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 15.6% of allowed cases (in the 97% 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 12% 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.