Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19171368 | Hardware-Implemented File Reader | April 2025 | January 2026 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 19081380 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR FILTERING VISUALIZATIONS FROM OR ACROSS DIFFERENT ANALYTICS PLATFORMS | March 2025 | December 2025 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 19009405 | INDICATING DIFFERENCES IN AND RECONCILING DATA STORED IN DISPARATE DATA STORAGE DEVICES | January 2025 | January 2026 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18941091 | HYPERGRAPH DATA STORAGE METHOD AND APPARATUS WITH TEMPORAL CHARACTERISTIC AND HYPERGRAPH DATA QUERY METHOD AND APPARATUS WITH TEMPORAL CHARACTERISTIC | November 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 13 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18937919 | DATA REPLICATION WITH CROSS REPLICATION GROUP REFERENCES | November 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18894787 | METHODS OF ORCHESTRATED DATA SHARING ACROSS CLOUD REGIONS AND CLOUD PLATFORMS OF CLOUD-BASED DATA WAREHOUSING SYSTEMS | September 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 15 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18808541 | ENRICHING EVENT STREAMS WITH ENTITY DATA | August 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18805752 | RESOURCE AWARE QUERY PLANNING | August 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18790308 | External Control for Structured Query Language (SQL) Statement Execution | July 2024 | September 2025 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18777290 | DCF-INFORMED ACCESS CONTROL FOR DATA FUSION IN EDGE ENVIRONMENTS | July 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18679600 | REAL-TIME REPLICATION OF DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TRANSACTIONS INTO A DATA LAKEHOUSE | May 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18624101 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR REPLICATED STATE MACHINE TRANSITION | April 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18422591 | KNOWLEDGE GRAPH CONSTRUCTION VIA GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | January 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18377596 | INTELLIGENT METHOD TO COMBINE MULTIPLE BLOCKCHAIN BASED SMART CONTRACTS LEVERAGING GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | October 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18465355 | REPAIRING UNRESOLVED DANGLING REFERENCES AFTER FAILOVER | September 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18203195 | PROFILE-ENRICHED EXPLANATIONS OF DATA-DRIVEN MODELS | May 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15819303 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR IMPROVING EFFICIENCY IN CLOUD-AS-BACKUP TIER | November 2017 | April 2020 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15272976 | TECHNOLOGIES FOR NODE-DEGREE BASED CLUSTERING OF DATA SETS | September 2016 | June 2019 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14729570 | Cognitive Session Graphs | June 2015 | March 2020 | Allow | 58 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 14173808 | OPTIMIZATION OF AN IN MEMORY DATA GRID (IMDG) SCHEMA BASED UPON A NO-SQL DOCUMENT MODEL | February 2014 | March 2018 | Allow | 49 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 14164078 | DEFINING AND TRANSFORMING ENTITY RELATIONSHIP-XML HYBRID DATA MODELS | January 2014 | November 2016 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14135967 | MANAGING DATA PATHS IN AN OPERATOR GRAPH | December 2013 | August 2016 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14031275 | IC CARD AND IC CARD CONTROL METHOD | September 2013 | June 2017 | Allow | 45 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 14030446 | MANAGING DATA PATHS IN AN OPERATOR GRAPH | September 2013 | August 2016 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13848837 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EVALUATING MULTILINGUAL TEXT SEQUENCES | March 2013 | June 2016 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13843729 | NETWORK CONTROLLER WITH INTEGRATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY | March 2013 | December 2016 | Allow | 45 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner GANGER, LAUREN ZANNAH.
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.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner GANGER, LAUREN ZANNAH works in Art Unit 2156 and has examined 10 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 39 months.
Examiner GANGER, LAUREN ZANNAH'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 GANGER, LAUREN ZANNAH receive 2.80 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 82% 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 GANGER, LAUREN ZANNAH is 39 months. This places the examiner in the 26% 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 GANGER, LAUREN ZANNAH. 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, 34.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 77% 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 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 1% 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.
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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 89% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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.
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.