Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18808283 | MANAGING ARCHIVING AND UNARCHIVING OPERATIONS AT A CONTENT COLLABORATION SYSTEM | August 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18598041 | Asynchronous Distributed De-Duplication For Replicated Content Addressable Storage Clusters | March 2024 | August 2025 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18294137 | SERVICE PROCESSING METHODS AND APPARATUSES | January 2024 | July 2025 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18234822 | FILE SYSTEM METADATA DEDUPLICATION | August 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 29 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18197774 | ROLES ASSIGNMENT | May 2023 | August 2025 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18309246 | AUTOMATED MACHINE LEARNING-BASED DETECTION OF CORRECT IMPLEMENTATIONS FOR CONFIGURATION SETTINGS OF SOFTWARE-AS-A-SERVICE APPLICATIONS | April 2023 | July 2025 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16994024 | TRANSIENT MATERIALIZED VIEW REWRITE | August 2020 | November 2021 | Allow | 15 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16289935 | ANSWERER EXTRACTION SYSTEM, ANSWERER EXTRACTION METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM | March 2019 | July 2022 | Abandon | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16023895 | DETERMINING EMPLOYMENT TYPE BASED ON MULTIPLE FEATURES | June 2018 | December 2020 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16014206 | NON-BLOCKING BACKUP IN A LOG REPLAY NODE FOR TERTIARY INITIALIZATION | June 2018 | September 2021 | Allow | 38 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16014375 | DATA FLOW VISUALIZATION SYSTEM | June 2018 | May 2022 | Abandon | 47 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15995046 | DOCUMENT STATUS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | May 2018 | September 2021 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15640154 | METHOD AND QUERY SUGGESTION SERVER FOR PROVIDING ALTERNATE QUERY SUGGESTIONS FOR TIME BOUND RESULTS | June 2017 | January 2022 | Abandon | 55 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 15640035 | METHOD AND RESULT SUMMARIZING APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING SUMMARY REPORTS OPTIONS ON QUERY RESULTS | June 2017 | April 2019 | Abandon | 22 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15608072 | Data Visualization Method and Apparatus, and Database Server | May 2017 | March 2018 | Abandon | 10 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15600539 | CONTACT INFORMATION PRESENTATION METHOD, CONTACT INFORMATION DETERMINING METHOD, AND RELATED DEVICE | May 2017 | April 2022 | Abandon | 59 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15470398 | Method and Query Processing Server for Optimizing Query Execution | March 2017 | October 2019 | Abandon | 31 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15423684 | Method and Apparatus for Shielding Heterogeneous Data Source | February 2017 | September 2017 | Abandon | 8 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15420528 | Search Device and Search Method | January 2017 | February 2019 | Abandon | 24 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12495381 | Information Processing Apparatus and Information Processing Method | June 2009 | May 2010 | Abandon | 11 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12488135 | MEDIA ASSET INTERACTIVE SEARCH | June 2009 | April 2014 | Abandon | 58 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12154630 | Electronic directory system | May 2008 | October 2011 | Abandon | 41 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12152379 | Portable database storage appliance | May 2008 | February 2012 | Abandon | 45 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12119651 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CRAWLING THE WORLD WIDE WEB | May 2008 | September 2011 | Abandon | 40 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12119797 | PARTITIONING OF MEASURES OF AN OLAP CUBE USING STATIC AND DYNAMIC CRITERIA | May 2008 | September 2011 | Abandon | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12119309 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AGGREGATE WEB SITE DATABASE PRICE WATCH FEATURE | May 2008 | December 2011 | Abandon | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12119338 | METHOD AND SYSTEM OF GENERATING AN AGGREGATE WEBSITE SEARCH DATABASE USING SMART INDEXES FOR SEARCHING | May 2008 | January 2012 | Abandon | 44 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11856327 | CUSTOMIZATION OF SEARCH RESULTS | September 2007 | February 2012 | Abandon | 53 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 10787714 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPLEMENTING AN XML QUERY LANGUAGE | February 2004 | November 2006 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10735217 | OBJECT VERSIONING | December 2003 | November 2006 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MOFIZ, APU 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, 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 MOFIZ, APU M works in Art Unit 2161 and has examined 24 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 20.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 40 months.
Examiner MOFIZ, APU M's allowance rate of 20.8% places them in the 2% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by MOFIZ, APU M receive 1.71 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 36% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by MOFIZ, APU M is 40 months. This places the examiner in the 23% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +38.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MOFIZ, APU M. This interview benefit is in the 86% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 11.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 6% 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 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 25.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 13% 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'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.