Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19073901 | LANGUAGE MODEL-GUIDED REASONING PROCESSES FOR LARGE-SCALE REASONING | March 2025 | October 2025 | Allow | 7 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18961473 | SCALABLE SCAFFOLDING AND BUNDLED DATA | November 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18924622 | SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR VARYING OPTIMIZATION SOLUTIONS USING CONSTRAINTS BASED ON AN ENDPOINT | October 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18619786 | UPDATING SYSTEM CONFIGURATION DATA TO INCLUDE OBJECTS FOR MACHINE LEARNING MODELS IN A DATABASE SYSTEM | March 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17977886 | System and Method for Searching Electronic Records using Gestures | October 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15981776 | ENABLING CONSISTENCY IN PUSH ORDER FOR NETWORK CACHING | May 2018 | October 2020 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15981758 | ADJUSTING BACKUP DATA IN RESPONSE TO AN ABNORMALITY DETECTION | May 2018 | March 2021 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15957218 | NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SOCIAL-BASED MATRIX REFACTORIZATION | April 2018 | May 2020 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15648374 | BLENDING LEARNING MODELS FOR SEARCH SUPPORT | July 2017 | June 2021 | Allow | 47 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14981244 | Cloud-Enabled Architecture for On-Demand Native Application Crawling | December 2015 | January 2020 | Allow | 48 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13239832 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR COLLECTING PERFORMANCE DATA FOR STORAGE NETWORK | September 2011 | April 2013 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12753820 | LOCATION ACTIVITY SEARCH ENGINE COMPUTER SYSTEM | April 2010 | June 2014 | Allow | 50 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner SHECHTMAN, CHERYL MARIA works in Art Unit 2164 and has examined 7 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 34 months.
Examiner SHECHTMAN, CHERYL MARIA'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 SHECHTMAN, CHERYL MARIA receive 1.86 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 44% 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 SHECHTMAN, CHERYL MARIA is 34 months. This places the examiner in the 43% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SHECHTMAN, CHERYL MARIA. 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, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 97% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.
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 file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 98% 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 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.