Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18598202 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR INFORMATION PRESENTING | March 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17709586 | MANAGING TENANCY UNITS IN A MULTI-TENANCY HYBRID-CLOUD OR ON-PREMISE ENVIRONMENT | March 2022 | March 2024 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17061504 | NESTED SORTING OF DATA MARKS IN DATA VISUALIZATIONS | October 2020 | January 2022 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17039446 | JSON PERSISTENCE SERVICE | September 2020 | January 2022 | Allow | 16 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17027044 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MERGING SLOWLY CHANGING DATA | September 2020 | January 2022 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16929846 | DETECTING AND REPORTING CHANGES IN DATA VALUES | July 2020 | February 2022 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16913103 | SEARCH USING DATA WAREHOUSE GRANTS | June 2020 | February 2022 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16905513 | DISSIMILAR QUERY ENGINE | June 2020 | February 2025 | Abandon | 56 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16871448 | Text-Based Search of Tree-Structured Tables | May 2020 | October 2021 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16717454 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING MULTI-CATEGORY SEARCHABLE TERNARY TREE DATA STRUCTURE | December 2019 | November 2021 | Allow | 23 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16674194 | HISTORICAL STATE MANAGEMENT IN DATABASES | November 2019 | February 2022 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16593309 | SEMANTIC MATCHING SYSTEM AND METHOD | October 2019 | December 2021 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16389873 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LOGGING TEMPERATURES OF FOOD PRODUCTS | April 2019 | November 2021 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16379436 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING AND GROUPING RELATED CONTENT LABELS | April 2019 | October 2021 | Allow | 30 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16284589 | MOBILE EXPLORER | February 2019 | January 2022 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16264464 | INTEGRATED ENTITY VIEW ACROSS DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS | January 2019 | May 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16157622 | PERFORMING ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INCIDENT MANAGEMENT USING COGNITIVE COMPUTING | October 2018 | November 2021 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16003054 | System and Method for Data Integration | June 2018 | June 2022 | Abandon | 49 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15839620 | AIRCRAFT LOGBOOK MANAGEMENT | December 2017 | January 2022 | Allow | 49 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15818645 | Method to Federate Data Replication over a Communications Network | November 2017 | July 2018 | Abandon | 8 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15588306 | EVENT PROCESSING SYSTEM | May 2017 | June 2020 | Abandon | 37 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15031362 | BLOOM FILTER BASED LOG DATA ANALYSIS | April 2016 | May 2020 | Abandon | 48 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14626378 | RANKING SYSTEM FOR SEARCH RESULTS ON NETWORK | February 2015 | January 2018 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13917886 | PERSONALIZED SEARCH EXPERIENCE BASED ON UNDERSTANDING FRESH WEB CONCEPTS AND USER INTERESTS | June 2013 | November 2017 | Abandon | 53 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13829329 | SEARCH ANNOTATION AND SUGGESTION | March 2013 | November 2017 | Abandon | 56 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13723397 | MEDIA FILE SYSTEM WITH ASSOCIATED METADATA | December 2012 | March 2015 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13723592 | ENTITY NAME DISAMBIGUATION | December 2012 | March 2015 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12897599 | INTERNET SYSTEM FOR CONNECTING HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS AND PATIENTS | October 2010 | May 2013 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12849428 | Method, system and device for associating content with a category | August 2010 | March 2013 | Abandon | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12529655 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONTENT DELIVERY | March 2010 | February 2013 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12376385 | Mode of Operation, Data Model, and System | May 2009 | June 2013 | Abandon | 52 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12204164 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INFORMATION PROCESSING BASED ON CONTEXT, AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM THEREOF | September 2008 | March 2013 | Abandon | 54 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12200533 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR EFFICIENTLY STORING DATA FILES | August 2008 | March 2013 | Abandon | 55 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10376213 | Content management system | February 2003 | June 2013 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MAHMOUDI, HASSAN.
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 MAHMOUDI, HASSAN works in Art Unit 2163 and has examined 33 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 42.4%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 32 months.
Examiner MAHMOUDI, HASSAN's allowance rate of 42.4% places them in the 5% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by MAHMOUDI, HASSAN receive 2.18 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 MAHMOUDI, HASSAN is 32 months. This places the examiner in the 31% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -12.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MAHMOUDI, HASSAN. This interview benefit is in the 1% 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, 7.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 1% 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 9.1% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 4% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 0% 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, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 83% 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 10% 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 11% 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.