Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18404374 | System And Method For Improved State Identification And Prediction In Computerized Queries | January 2024 | February 2025 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18462239 | SCHEMA MATCHING OF DISPARATE DATA SOURCES USING EMBEDDING-BASED SIMILARITY SCORES | September 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18240320 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ABSTRACTING INFORMATION FOR USE IN LINK ANALYSIS | August 2023 | January 2025 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18448512 | DATA PRUNING BASED ON METADATA | August 2023 | February 2025 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18218455 | ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE GEOSPATIAL SEARCH | July 2023 | November 2024 | Allow | 17 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17977849 | INFRASTRUCTURE FOR COMPOSED SUPERGRAPHS | October 2022 | December 2024 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18049700 | SO-MAP: A SEMANTIC-AWARE ALGORITHM FOR OPTIMIZING THE REPRESENTATION STRUCTURE OF OCTOMAPS | October 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17934876 | METHOD OF PROCESSING TRIPLE DATA, METHOD OF TRAINING TRIPLE DATA PROCESSING MODEL, DEVICE, AND MEDIUM | September 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17658416 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DATA PARSING | April 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17490186 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATED MAPPING OF DATA TYPES FOR USE WITH DATAFLOW ENVIRONMENTS | September 2021 | December 2024 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17156563 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR CONDUCTING MULTI-USER PERSONALIZED, INTERACTIVE AND INTELLIGENT SEARCHES | January 2021 | June 2025 | Abandon | 53 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16944689 | Detecting and managing routing parameters of electronic files | July 2020 | May 2023 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16887751 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CLOUD CONTENT-BASED DOCUMENT CLUSTERING AND CLASSIFICATION INTEGRATION | May 2020 | November 2024 | Allow | 53 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16777073 | SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUSES FOR PROTECTING CONSUMER DATA PRIVACY USING SOLID, BLOCKCHAIN AND IPFS INTEGRATION | January 2020 | May 2023 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16777141 | SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUSES FOR IMPLEMENTING AN SQL QUERY AND FILTER MECHANISM FOR BLOCKCHAIN STORED DATA USING DISTRIBUTED LEDGER TECHNOLOGY (DLT) | January 2020 | June 2023 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16482517 | PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT | July 2019 | June 2023 | Abandon | 46 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16399920 | SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUSES FOR IMPLEMENTING A DECLARATIVE AND METADATA DRIVEN BLOCKCHAIN PLATFORM USING DISTRIBUTED LEDGER TECHNOLOGY (DLT) | April 2019 | June 2023 | Allow | 50 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16399913 | SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUSES FOR IMPLEMENTING A DECLARATIVE, METADATA DRIVEN, CRYPTOGRAPHICALLY VERIFIABLE MULTI-NETWORK (MULTI-TENANT) SHARED LEDGER | April 2019 | June 2023 | Allow | 50 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16219791 | PERSONALIZED SEARCH RESULT RANKINGS | December 2018 | February 2023 | Allow | 50 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16146171 | RANKING NOTIFICATIONS IN A SOCIAL NETWORK FEED | September 2018 | June 2023 | Allow | 56 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15783253 | PARALLEL DATA STREAM PROCESSING SYSTEM | October 2017 | June 2023 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15465677 | GENERATING CONTEXTUAL INSIGHTS FROM DEPLOYED APPLICATIONS IN MULTIPLE COMPUTING DEVICES | March 2017 | April 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15136412 | VIDEO FINGERPRINTING | April 2016 | July 2022 | Allow | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner NG, AMY.
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, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable reconsideration.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner NG, AMY works in Art Unit 2164 and has examined 22 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 86.4%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 41 months.
Examiner NG, AMY's allowance rate of 86.4% places them in the 59% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by NG, AMY receive 2.64 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 89% 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 NG, AMY is 41 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 -6.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by NG, AMY. This interview benefit is in the 2% 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, 33.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 65% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 16.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 12% 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, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 93% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 88% 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.
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'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.