Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19042566 | HYBRID RETRIEVAL AUGMENTED GENERATION FOR RICH DOCUMENT QUERIES USING A LARGE LANGUAGE MODEL | January 2025 | October 2025 | Allow | 8 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 19037457 | System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Automatically Preparing Documents for a Multi-National Organization | January 2025 | December 2025 | Allow | 10 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 19034803 | System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Automatically Preparing Documents for a Multi-National Organization | January 2025 | December 2025 | Allow | 10 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 19005388 | CONTEXTUALIZED TOKEN RETRIEVER | December 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 19004510 | MACHINE-LEARNING BASED (ML-BASED) SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATICALLY PROCESSING ONE OR MORE DOCUMENTS | December 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18983339 | CHARACTERIZING AND FORECASTING EVOLVING QUERY WORKLOADS | December 2024 | August 2025 | Allow | 8 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18948053 | INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ASSISTANCE INTERFACE WITH INTEGRATED ORGANIZATION CAPABILITIES | November 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18935717 | System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Searching a Plurality of Documents Based on a Text String | November 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18909815 | GENERATING CONTENT ITEMS BASED ON SOURCE DOCUMENT METADATA USING A GENERATIVE NEURAL NETWORK | October 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18791618 | METHOD AND AN APPARATUS FOR META-MODEL OPTIMIZATION OF AN ENGAGEMENT PORTFOLIO | August 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18775504 | SEARCH NEEDS EVALUATION PROGRAM, SEARCH NEEDS EVALUATION DEVICE AND SEARCH NEEDS EVALUATION METHOD, AND EVALUATION PROGRAM, EVALUATION DEVICE AND EVALUATION METHOD | July 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18750374 | USER GENERATED TAG COLLECTION SYSTEM AND METHOD | June 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18733129 | APPROXIMATE QUERY EQUIVALENCE FOR FEATURE STORES IN MACHINE LEARNING OPERATIONS PRODUCTS | June 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18661397 | INTER-DOCUMENT ATTENTION MECHANISM | May 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18655483 | ONBOARD DOCUMENTATION SYSTEM AND METHODS | May 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17881939 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING A STRUCTURAL MODEL ARCHITECTURE | August 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16694623 | METHODS, SYSTEMS, ARTICLES OF MANUFACTURE, AND APPARATUS TO MAP CLIENT SPECIFICATIONS WITH STANDARDIZED CHARACTERISTICS | November 2019 | June 2021 | Allow | 19 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16669563 | Utilizing Passages in Fusion-based Document Retrieval | October 2019 | June 2021 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16197852 | DATA PROCESSING WITH TAGS | November 2018 | August 2021 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15834180 | TEST DATA MANAGEMENT | December 2017 | August 2020 | Allow | 32 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15828401 | COGNITIVE TEMPLATE QUESTION SYSTEM | November 2017 | November 2020 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15100918 | MATCHING OF AN INPUT DOCUMENT TO DOCUMENTS IN A DOCUMENT COLLECTION | June 2016 | April 2020 | Allow | 46 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15088552 | HIGH FIDELITY COMBINATION OF DATA | April 2016 | September 2020 | Allow | 54 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14477904 | INDEX SUSPENSION PRIOR TO DATABASE UPDATE | September 2014 | July 2017 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14268523 | MEMORY STORAGE APPARATUS, METHOD OF SUPPORTING TRANSACTION FUNCTION FOR DATABASE, AND MEMORY SYSTEM | May 2014 | January 2017 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14169480 | STRUCTURED RELEVANCE-A MECHANISM TO REVEAL HOW DATA IS RELATED | January 2014 | September 2015 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13772986 | INTERNET PRESENCE SCORING | February 2013 | June 2015 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13751794 | SYSTEM AND METHODS THEREOF FOR DYNAMICALLY UPDATING THE CONTENTS OF A FOLDER ON A DEVICE | January 2013 | March 2016 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13463118 | PROCESS ARCHITECTURE FOR ELASTIC STATEFUL SHARED NOTHING SYSTEM | May 2012 | November 2012 | Allow | 6 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13033490 | STRUCTURED RELEVANCE - A MECHANISM TO REVEAL HOW DATA IS RELATED | February 2011 | October 2013 | Allow | 32 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12645556 | SERVING A REQUEST FOR DATA FROM A HISTORICAL RECORD OF ANONYMIZED USER PROFILE DATA IN A MOBILE ENVIRONMENT | December 2009 | March 2016 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner HOANG, HAU HAI.
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 HOANG, HAU HAI works in Art Unit 2154 and has examined 15 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 HOANG, HAU HAI's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 94% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by HOANG, HAU HAI receive 2.53 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 74% 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 HOANG, HAU HAI 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 HOANG, HAU HAI. 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, 35.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 80% 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 26.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 37% 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 6% 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 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 16% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 90% 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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 11% 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 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.