USPTO Examiner QIAN SHELLY X - Art Unit 2154

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18412036MACHINE-LEARNING-BASED VISUAL FILE SYSTEMJanuary 2024November 2025Abandon2230YesNo
18574636METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COMPATIBILITY OF FILE AGGREGATION, COMPUTER DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUMDecember 2023March 2026Abandon2740NoNo
18319099Real-time data modeling for data warehouse using quantum computingMay 2023March 2026Abandon3440YesNo
18303189ATTRIBUTE STORAGE, VIRTUALIZATION, AND MONITORING IN DATABASESApril 2023December 2025Abandon3240YesYes
18299413APPARATUS FOR JOINING DATA AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THEREOFApril 2023February 2026Abandon3450YesNo
18027039METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING SCRAPING PRESSUREMarch 2023February 2026Abandon3540NoNo
18172075ENHANCED SEARCH PERFORMANCE USING CONTEXTUAL ASPECT RELATEDNESSFebruary 2023February 2026Abandon3640YesNo
17982175ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR OPERATING FILE SYSTEMNovember 2022November 2025Abandon3640YesNo
18050626FINGERPRINT TRACKING STRUCTURE FOR STORAGE SYSTEMOctober 2022November 2025Allow3740NoYes
17807412HUMAN-IN-THE-LOOP CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN A COLLABORATIVE DATA LABELING PLATFORMJune 2022November 2025Abandon4140YesNo
17496949Method And System For Estimating Garbage Collection Suspension Contributions Of Individual Allocation SitesOctober 2021August 2025Allow4650YesNo
17322128ARCHITECTURE, METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ENFORCING COLLECTION AND DISPLAY OF COMPUTER FILE METADATAMay 2021March 2026Abandon5850YesNo
17115563SYNCHRONOUS DATABASE DATA PERSISTENCEDecember 2020November 2025Allow5980NoNo
17069615DOCUMENT MANAGEMENTOctober 2020December 2025Abandon6060YesNo
16553144EXTENSIBLE CONTENT OBJECT METADATAAugust 2019October 2025Allow60100YesYes
16031811DETECTION OF MISSING ENTITIES IN A GRAPH SCHEMAJuly 2018May 2020Allow2210YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner QIAN, SHELLY X.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
1
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
2.9%
Lower than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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.

Strategic Recommendations

Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner QIAN, SHELLY X - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner QIAN, SHELLY X works in Art Unit 2154 and has examined 6 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 66.7%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 59 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner QIAN, SHELLY X's allowance rate of 66.7% places them in the 28% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by QIAN, SHELLY X receive 5.83 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 100% 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by QIAN, SHELLY X is 59 months. This places the examiner in the 1% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a -40.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by QIAN, SHELLY X. This interview benefit is in the 0% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 8.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 4% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show lower effectiveness with this examiner compared to others. Consider whether a continuation application might be more strategic, especially if you need to add new matter or significantly broaden claims.

After-Final Amendment Practice

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 13% 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 89% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.

Petition Practice

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 Cooperation and Flexibility

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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • Appeal filing as negotiation tool: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.