USPTO Examiner SKHOUN HICHAM - Art Unit 2164

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18824375COMPUTER-BASED PLATFORMS/SYSTEMS/DEVICES/COMPONENTS AND/OR OBJECTS CONFIGURED FOR GENERATING VALUES FOR DATA STRUCTURES AND METHODS OF USE THEREOFSeptember 2024March 2026Abandon1820NoNo
18823437DISTRIBUTABLE HASH FILTER FOR NONPROBABILISTIC SET INCLUSIONSeptember 2024January 2026Allow1600NoNo
18815689SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTENT MANAGEMENT WITH INTELLIGENT DATA STORE ACCESS ACROSS DISTRIBUTED STORESAugust 2024January 2026Allow1710YesNo
18785663COMPRESSED SIGNAL PROPAGATION PIPELINEJuly 2024January 2026Allow1810YesNo
18780353Distributed File System that Provides Scalability and ResiliencyJuly 2024September 2025Allow1410NoNo
18678996METRICS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMMay 2024September 2025Allow1620YesNo
18675930DATA EXPLORATION USING NATURAL LANGUAGE WITH DATA SAMPLINGMay 2024March 2026Allow2130YesNo
18656169NFT SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND STRUCTURESMay 2024November 2025Abandon1810YesNo
18648989DEFRAGMENTATION FOR LOG STRUCTURED MERGE TREE TO IMPROVE READ AND WRITE AMPLIFICATIONApril 2024September 2025Allow1700NoNo
18638078METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SYNCHRONIZING COMMUNICATION RECORDS IN COMPUTER NETWORKS BASED ON DETECTING PATTERNS IN CATEGORIES OF METADATAApril 2024February 2026Allow2220YesNo
18626984AUTOMATED CERTIFICATE SYSTEMS AND METHODSApril 2024March 2026Abandon2330YesNo
18438153TECHNIQUES TO EMBED A DATA OBJECT INTO A MULTIDIMENSIONAL FRAMEFebruary 2024March 2026Allow2511NoNo
18437031METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DATA CONVERSATIONSFebruary 2024January 2026Abandon2320NoNo
18408866PROACTIVE DETERMINATION OF DATA INSIGHTSJanuary 2024March 2026Allow2640NoYes
18382635METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR THE EXECUTION OF ANALYSIS AND/OR SERVICES AGAINST MULTIPLE DATA SOURCES WHILE MAINTAINING ISOLATION OF ORIGINAL DATA SOURCEOctober 2023January 2026Allow2711NoNo
18475010CLUSTER VIEWS FOR COMPUTE SCALE AND CACHE PRESERVATIONSeptember 2023August 2025Allow2330NoNo
18198907REPLICATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WITH ENHANCED LOG ANALYSIS FUNCTIONALITYMay 2023February 2026Allow3340YesNo
17788560STORING AND SEARCHING FOR DATA IN DATA STORESJune 2022January 2026Allow4210YesNo
16595739INTERNET SEARCH RESULT INTENTIONOctober 2019April 2021Allow1800NoNo
16556368PAGE FILTERING VIA COMPRESSION DICTIONARY FILTERINGAugust 2019September 2020Allow1300NoNo
16554680PAGE FILTERING VIA COMPRESSION DICTIONARY FILTERINGAugust 2019September 2020Allow1300NoNo
16354484EVALUATING QUALITY OF ANNOTATIONMarch 2019September 2019Allow600NoNo
16354514EVALUATING QUALITY OF ANNOTATIONMarch 2019September 2019Allow600NoNo
16159689Contextual and Collaborative MediaOctober 2018February 2021Allow2810YesNo
16157304SEMANTIC CONCEPT DISCOVERY OVER EVENT DATABASESOctober 2018March 2021Allow2970NoNo
16114981HIERARCHICAL FILE TRANSFER USING KDE-OPTIMIZED FILESIZE PROBABILITY DENSITIESAugust 2018June 2020Allow2200NoNo
15696304PAGE FILTERING VIA COMPRESSION DICTIONARY FILTERINGSeptember 2017April 2019Allow2010NoNo
15688493EFFICIENT AND ACCURATE LOOKUPS OF DATA BY A STREAM PROCESSOR USING A HASH TABLEAugust 2017June 2020Allow3310YesNo
15660992EVALUATING QUALITY OF ANNOTATIONJuly 2017December 2018Allow1630YesNo
15428635METHOD AND SYSTEM OF IDENTIFYING A CONCEPT OF A GOOD OR SERVICE FOR AN UNMET MARKET POTENTIALFebruary 2017September 2020Abandon4320YesNo
15252160Short-Circuiting Normal Grace-Period Computations In The Presence Of Expedited Grace PeriodsAugust 2016March 2019Allow3000NoNo
15250115SENTIMENT ANALYSISAugust 2016December 2018Allow2710YesNo
15204269PATTERN LABELINGJuly 2016November 2019Allow4040NoYes
15203063ROUTINE DEVIATION NOTIFICATIONJuly 2016November 2019Allow4040YesYes
15194635PAGE FILTERING VIA COMPRESSION DICTIONARY FILTERINGJune 2016April 2019Allow3410NoNo
15063244EVALUATING QUALITY OF ANNOTATIONMarch 2016December 2018Allow3330YesNo
15005529SELECTION OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR QUERY EXECUTIONJanuary 2016October 2019Allow4540YesNo
14381303TRIGGERING OF A SOFTWARE APPLICATION BY THE USE OF A CARTOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATIONAugust 2014January 2019Allow5360NoYes
14336299INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMPUTER PRODUCTJuly 2014December 2019Allow6020NoYes
13947016GROUP MEMBERSHIP CONTENT PRESENTATION AND AUGMENTATION SYSTEM AND METHODJuly 2013March 2019Allow6031YesYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SKHOUN, HICHAM.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
0
(0.0%)
Examiner Reversed
1
(100.0%)
Reversal Percentile
92.7%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
5
Allowed After Appeal Filing
4
(80.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(20.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
94.8%
Higher than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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, 80.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Strategic Recommendations

Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.

Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Examiner SKHOUN, HICHAM - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner SKHOUN, HICHAM works in Art Unit 2164 and has examined 22 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 95.5%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 30 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner SKHOUN, HICHAM's allowance rate of 95.5% places them in the 85% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by SKHOUN, HICHAM receive 1.95 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 48% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by SKHOUN, HICHAM is 30 months. This places the examiner in the 59% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a -11.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SKHOUN, HICHAM. This interview benefit is in the 3% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 23.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 32% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 14.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 15% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 100.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 71% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. If you have strong arguments, a PAC request may result in favorable reconsideration.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 83.3% of appeals filed. This is in the 76% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 20.0% 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.

Petition Practice

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 Cooperation and Flexibility

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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • Appeal filing as negotiation tool: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.