Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19299748 | GENERAL INCREMENTAL COMPUTATION METHOD BASED ON INTERMEDIATE STATE | August 2025 | January 2026 | Allow | 5 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18939343 | STRUCTURED QUERY STATEMENT SIMILARITY DETECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND DEVICE | November 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 15 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18903657 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING LOG REQUEST, DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | October 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 16 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18763688 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENHANCED CLOUD-BASED RULES CONFLICT CHECKING WITH DATA VALIDATION | July 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 17 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18211219 | MATCHING AND MERGING USING METADATA CONFIGURATION BASED ON AN N-LAYER MODEL | June 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 31 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 18200831 | SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR SEARCH ENGINE PARAMETER TUNING USING GENETIC ALGORITHM | May 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 34 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 18151020 | APPLICATION DRIVEN DATA CHANGE CONFLICT HANDLING SYSTEM | January 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 37 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17966714 | TECHNIQUES FOR COMPREHENSIVELY SUPPORTING JSON SCHEMA IN A RDBMS | October 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 32 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16669574 | FILTER FILE SYSTEM WITH INODE NUMBER AS PRIMARY DATABASE KEY | October 2019 | May 2021 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15829843 | MULTI-STAGE RANKING OPTIMIZATION FOR SELECTING CONTENT | December 2017 | January 2021 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15684993 | OPTIMIZING DATA ACCESS FROM A FEDERATED REPOSITORY BASED ON CONCORDANCE FREQUENCY | August 2017 | October 2020 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15007267 | Filter File System With Inode Number As Primary Database Key | January 2016 | August 2019 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14177838 | Methods and systems for content access and distribution | February 2014 | August 2016 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14056179 | GENERATING SYNTHETIC DATA | October 2013 | June 2018 | Allow | 56 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14029547 | DEVICE, METHOD, AND PROGRAM FOR PROCESSING DATA WITH TREE STRUCTURE | September 2013 | August 2016 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13953663 | RESOURCE EFFICIENT DOCUMENT SEARCH | July 2013 | May 2018 | Allow | 57 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13264672 | SEAMLESS APPLICATION BACKUP AND RECOVERY USING METADATA | October 2011 | December 2017 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13192805 | SEARCH SYSTEMS AND METHODS WITH INTEGRATION OF AGGREGATE USER ANNOTATIONS | July 2011 | January 2018 | Allow | 60 | 11 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13104569 | SEARCH SYSTEMS AND METHODS WITH INTEGRATION OF USER ANNOTATIONS | May 2011 | June 2016 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12577534 | POSTING LIST INTERSECTION PARALLELISM IN QUERY PROCESSING | October 2009 | May 2014 | Allow | 55 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12575016 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR CONTENT ACCESS AND DISTRIBUTION | October 2009 | October 2013 | Allow | 48 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12567472 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR USER GUIDED SEARCH NAVIGATION | September 2009 | January 2014 | Allow | 52 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11971745 | ADAPTING A CONTEXT-INDEPENDENT RELEVANCE FUNCTION FOR IDENTIFYING RELEVANT SEARCH RESULTS | January 2008 | February 2014 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11360680 | PHOTO IMAGE RETRIEVAL SYSTEM AND PROGRAM | February 2006 | April 2009 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11082392 | PARTIAL PRE-AGGREGATION IN RELATIONAL DATABASE QUERIES | March 2005 | April 2009 | Allow | 49 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner WILLOUGHBY, ALICIA M.
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, 100.0% 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.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner WILLOUGHBY, ALICIA M works in Art Unit 2156 and has examined 17 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 49 months.
Examiner WILLOUGHBY, ALICIA M'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 WILLOUGHBY, ALICIA M receive 3.94 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 97% 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 WILLOUGHBY, ALICIA M is 49 months. This places the examiner in the 6% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by WILLOUGHBY, ALICIA M. 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, 20.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 21% 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.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 41.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 64% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.
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.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 5.9% of allowed cases (in the 87% 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.