Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17094080 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISPLAYING CUSTOMIZED SEARCH RESULTS BASED ON PAST BEHAVIOUR | November 2020 | August 2023 | Allow | 33 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17031996 | DATABASE SELF-DIAGNOSIS AND SELF-HEALING | September 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 36 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17030103 | TEMPORAL LOCALIZATION OF MATURE CONTENT IN LONG-FORM VIDEOS USING ONLY VIDEO-LEVEL LABELS | September 2020 | July 2023 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16985462 | GENERATING OR MODIFYING AN ONTOLOGY REPRESENTING RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN INPUT DATA | August 2020 | September 2022 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16917987 | AUTOMATED FEEDBACK AND CONTINUOUS LEARNING FOR QUERY OPTIMIZATION | July 2020 | September 2022 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16915895 | Correlating Application Performance to External Events | June 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 49 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16883053 | AUTOMATED METADATA ASSET CREATION USING MACHINE LEARNING MODELS | May 2020 | October 2022 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15931351 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SEARCH DISCOVERY | May 2020 | February 2024 | Allow | 45 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16862482 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SENSITIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS PRIORITIZATION BASED ON FILE METADATA | April 2020 | February 2023 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16725841 | AUTOMATED LABELERS FOR MACHINE LEARNING ALGORITHMS | December 2019 | November 2023 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16681880 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SOCIAL FILTERING OF COMMENTS | November 2019 | March 2024 | Allow | 52 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16593478 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING AN ARTIFICIALLY-INTELLIGENT GRAPH DATABASE | October 2019 | July 2023 | Allow | 45 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16492057 | INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | September 2019 | December 2022 | Allow | 39 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16406787 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IMAGE RECOGNITION SERVICES | May 2019 | March 2023 | Allow | 47 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16396559 | DISTRIBUTED APPLICATION ARCHITECTURES USING BLOCKCHAIN AND DISTRIBUTED FILE SYSTEMS | April 2019 | May 2023 | Allow | 49 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16396201 | System and Method of Aggregating Domain Name System Monitoring Data | April 2019 | February 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16394876 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HETEROGENEOUS DATABASE REPLICATION FROM A REMOTE SERVER | April 2019 | December 2022 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16393659 | AUTOMATIC OBJECTIVE-BASED COMPRESSION LEVEL CHANGE FOR INDIVIDUAL CLUSTERS | April 2019 | December 2022 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16264125 | Media Consumption History | January 2019 | August 2023 | Allow | 54 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16192514 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING A SHARED DATABASE | November 2018 | December 2022 | Allow | 49 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16192685 | EXPANDING SEARCH ENGINE CAPABILITIES USING AI MODEL RECOMMENDATIONS | November 2018 | November 2022 | Allow | 48 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16084529 | METHOD, MEDIUM, AND SYSTEM FOR JOINING DATA TABLES | September 2018 | January 2023 | Allow | 52 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 15856505 | CONSTRUCTING, EVALUATING, AND IMPROVING A SEARCH STRING FOR RETRIEVING IMAGES INDICATING ITEM USE | December 2017 | February 2023 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15636530 | CENTRALIZED STATE DATABASE STORING STATE INFORMATION | June 2017 | September 2023 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14959292 | MANAGING FILE CHANGES MADE DURING A REVIEW PROCESS | December 2015 | July 2016 | Allow | 7 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14732825 | MANAGING FILE CHANGES MADE DURING A REVIEW PROCESS | June 2015 | November 2016 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14219100 | INFERRED OPERATIONS FOR DATA ANALYSIS | March 2014 | July 2016 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13801510 | PRESERVING REDUNDANCY IN DATA DEDUPLICATION SYSTEMS BY DESIGNATION OF VIRTUAL ADDRESS | March 2013 | October 2015 | Allow | 31 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13737134 | TEMPORAL PATTERN MATCHING IN LARGE COLLECTIONS OF LOG MESSAGES | January 2013 | March 2015 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13278943 | DYNAMIC SMT IN PARALLEL DATABASE SYSTEMS | October 2011 | June 2015 | Allow | 44 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13166394 | Creating and Managing Reference Elements of Deployable Web Archive Files | June 2011 | June 2013 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12893982 | IDENTIFYING A SET OF CANDIDATE ENTITIES FOR AN IDENTITY RECORD | September 2010 | August 2014 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12497427 | PARALLELIZED, INCREMENTAL GARBAGE COLLECTOR | July 2009 | March 2012 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner PARK, GRACE A.
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 PARK, GRACE A works in Art Unit 2164 and has examined 33 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 93.9%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 44 months.
Examiner PARK, GRACE A's allowance rate of 93.9% places them in the 82% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by PARK, GRACE A receive 3.52 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 92% 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 PARK, GRACE A is 44 months. This places the examiner in the 15% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +3.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by PARK, GRACE A. This interview benefit is in the 27% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 41% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 25.9% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 37% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.
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, 25.0% 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, 40.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 28% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.
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 13% 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.