USPTO Examiner SHARPLESS SAMUEL - Art Unit 2166

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17129408SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATICALLY PROVIDING ALTERNATIVE POINTS OF VIEW FOR MULTIMEDIA CONTENTDecember 2020November 2022Allow2310NoNo
17125536EFFICIENT DICTIONARY DATA STRUCTURE TO FIND SIMILAR BACKUP CLIENTSDecember 2020October 2024Allow4620NoNo
17093290SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING VOLUMES OF DATA IN A BLOCK STORAGE SYSTEMNovember 2020December 2023Abandon3730NoNo
17049568FILESYSTEMSOctober 2020April 2022Abandon1810NoNo
17069970CONCEPTUAL, CONTEXTUAL, AND SEMANTIC-BASED RESEARCH SYSTEM AND METHODOctober 2020July 2023Abandon3320NoNo
17014395LIVE VIDEO RECOMMENDATION BY AN ONLINE SYSTEMSeptember 2020March 2022Allow1810YesNo
16983890Collaborative-Filtered Content Recommendations With Justification in Real-TimeAugust 2020August 2022Allow2510YesNo
16925528METHOD FOR PROVIDING RELATIONAL DECENTRALIZED IDENTIFIER SERVICE AND BLOCKCHAIN NODE USING THE SAMEJuly 2020March 2022Allow2040YesNo
16921226RECURSIVE FUNCTIONALITY IN RELATIONAL DATABASE SYSTEMSJuly 2020May 2023Allow3430NoNo
16885495TARGETLESS SNAPSHOT VIRTUAL REPLICATION DATA POINTER TABLEMay 2020December 2023Allow4230NoNo
16870003TECHNOLOGIES FOR PERFORMING STOCHASTIC SIMILARITY SEARCHES IN AN ONLINE CLUSTERING SPACEMay 2020November 2022Allow3020YesNo
16816428LOGICAL PATHS FOR UNIFIED FILE AND BLOCK DATA STORAGEMarch 2020June 2023Allow3930NoNo
16780862HANDLING FAULTED DATABASE TRANSACTION RECORDSFebruary 2020September 2024Allow5540NoNo
16774629DATA STORAGE AND CALLING METHODS AND DEVICESJanuary 2020January 2022Allow2440YesNo
16699410MACHINE LEARNING INFERENCE CALLS FOR DATABASE QUERY PROCESSINGNovember 2019December 2023Allow4930YesNo
16684280Methods and Systems for Identifying and Retrieving Hierarchically Related FilesNovember 2019October 2022Allow3520NoNo
16674555STORAGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHODNovember 2019December 2022Allow3740YesNo
16672059KEYWORD RANKING FOR QUERY AUTO-COMPLETION BASED ON PRODUCT SUPPLY AND DEMANDNovember 2019January 2022Allow2720YesNo
16667189DOCUMENT SIMILARITY THROUGH REFERENCE LINKSOctober 2019November 2024Allow6040YesYes
16588155NATURAL LANGUAGE INTERFACE TO DATABASESSeptember 2019May 2023Allow4430YesNo
16580637STATEFUL CONTAINER MIGRATIONSeptember 2019July 2021Allow2210YesNo
16578166ASSOCIATING USER-PROVIDED CONTENT ITEMS TO INTEREST NODESSeptember 2019July 2024Allow5840NoNo
16560792METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SEARCHING FOR SIMILAR PATENT BASED ON ELEMENT ALIGNMENTSeptember 2019August 2024Abandon5940NoNo
16445408TERM-UID GENERATION, MAPPING AND LOOKUPJune 2019June 2023Abandon4810NoNo
16406267DETERMINING AN ASSOCIATION METRIC FOR RECORD ATTRIBUTES ASSOCIATED WITH CARDINALITIES THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME FOR TRAINING AND APPLYING AN ENTITY RESOLUTION MODELMay 2019October 2023Allow5330YesNo
16369582SCALING HDFS FOR HIVEMarch 2019September 2022Allow4230YesNo
16369550SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EXECUTING SERVICE REQUESTMarch 2019November 2023Allow5650YesNo
16291022METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR DATA PROCESSINGMarch 2019February 2022Allow3520NoNo
16222775Transparent Database Session Recovery With Client-Side CachingDecember 2018January 2023Allow4950YesNo
16222003APPLET MANAGEMENT DEVICE AND METHODDecember 2018June 2021Abandon3020NoNo
16213815WRITING DATA TO AN LSM TREE FILE STRUCTURE USING CONSISTENT CACHE STAGINGDecember 2018December 2022Allow4830YesNo
16188239Automated Detection of Duplicate Content in Media ItemsNovember 2018January 2023Allow5040YesNo
16300943COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR COMPETENCY INFORMATION MANAGEMENTNovember 2018September 2021Allow3410NoNo
16179587EMOJI CLASSIFIERNovember 2018April 2022Abandon4240YesNo
16168129USING MACHINE LEARNING TO DETERMINE ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT SIMILARITYOctober 2018December 2021Allow3840YesNo
16054966METHOD, APPARATUS, DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM FOR ESTABLISHING ERROR CORRECTION MODEL BASED ON ERROR CORRECTION PLATFORMAugust 2018December 2023Abandon6050NoNo
16035462METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGING RESOURCE OBJECTJuly 2018September 2021Abandon3820NoNo
16061707METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR PROCESSING BIOMETRIC RESPONSES TO MULTIMEDIA CONTENTJune 2018December 2020Abandon3010NoNo
16007976FACILITATING SPATIAL INDEXING ON DISTRIBUTED KEY-VALUE STORESJune 2018June 2022Allow4840YesNo
16008021Refined Search With Machine LearningJune 2018September 2022Allow5150YesNo
15955681DATABASE TRANSACTION LOG WRITING AND INTEGRITY CHECKINGApril 2018May 2021Allow3720YesNo
15955092INFORMATION ACCESS IN A GRAPH DATABASEApril 2018February 2021Allow3430YesNo
15955600DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION IN A GRAPH DATABASEApril 2018March 2021Allow3530YesNo
15955573SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CENTRALIZED DATABASE CLUSTER MANAGEMENTApril 2018January 2021Allow3320YesNo
15955550SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING VOLUMES OF DATA IN A BLOCK STORAGE SYSTEMApril 2018September 2020Allow2920YesNo
15940240Data-Driven Reduction of Log Message DataMarch 2018October 2020Allow3020YesNo
15940247Real-Time Compression of Log DataMarch 2018March 2021Allow3630YesNo
15940302CONSTRUCTING AN INVERTED INDEXMarch 2018April 2021Allow3720NoNo
15909328HEURISTIC FOR THE DATA CLUSTERING PROBLEMMarch 2018October 2020Abandon3110YesNo
15908596BOT NETWORKSFebruary 2018January 2021Allow3530YesNo
15908496STATISTICAL PROCESSING OF NATURAL LANGUAGE QUERIES OF DATA SETSFebruary 2018October 2021Allow4340YesNo
15908493INTEREST EMBEDDING VECTORSFebruary 2018June 2021Allow3940YesNo
15908559AUDIENCE FILTERING SYSTEMFebruary 2018August 2020Allow3040YesNo
15577458METHOD, APPARATUS AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR DISPLAYING SEARCH INFORMATIONNovember 2017November 2021Allow4850NoNo
15822522SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FINDING SIMILAR DOCUMENTS BASED ON SEMANTIC FACTUAL SIMILARITYNovember 2017June 2023Allow6070NoNo
15822391SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATICALLY PROVIDING ALTERNATIVE POINTS OF VIEW FOR MULTIMEDIA CONTENTNovember 2017October 2020Allow3540YesNo
15823275ONTOLOGY REFINEMENT BASED ON QUERY INPUTSNovember 2017June 2020Allow3020YesNo
15823256LIVE VIDEO RECOMMENDATION BY AN ONLINE SYSTEMNovember 2017June 2020Allow3130YesNo
15823239NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING OF UNSTRUCTURED DATANovember 2017November 2023Allow6060NoYes
15823331Collaborative-Filtered Content Recommendations With Justification in Real-TimeNovember 2017April 2020Allow2920YesNo
15823097NORMALIZING COMPOUND ARTIFACT DEPENDENCY DATANovember 2017May 2020Allow2910NoNo
15822055Distributed Ledger Registry SystemNovember 2017March 2020Abandon2710NoNo
15821658Conflict Resolution in a Data ProxyNovember 2017May 2021Allow4240YesNo
15656338METADATA SEPARATED CONTAINER FORMATJuly 2017June 2022Allow5950NoNo
15656168Online Metadata Backup Consistency CheckJuly 2017May 2020Allow3410YesNo
15656286AUTOMATED SERVER DISCOVERYJuly 2017December 2021Allow5340NoNo
15499218INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, METHOD, AND MEDIUMApril 2017August 2020Allow3920YesNo
15405996Data Replication Method, Apparatus, and SystemJanuary 2017April 2021Allow5130NoNo

Appeals Overview

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

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
0
(0.0%)
Examiner Reversed
1
(100.0%)
Reversal Percentile
92.8%
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
3
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(33.3%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(66.7%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
52.3%
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, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.

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 SHARPLESS, SAMUEL - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner SHARPLESS, SAMUEL works in Art Unit 2166 and has examined 68 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 82.4%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 37 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner SHARPLESS, SAMUEL's allowance rate of 82.4% places them in the 56% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by SHARPLESS, SAMUEL receive 2.94 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 82% 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by SHARPLESS, SAMUEL is 37 months. This places the examiner in the 32% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +30.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SHARPLESS, SAMUEL. This interview benefit is in the 77% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 28.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 55% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 23.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 32% 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 48% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 36.4% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 23% 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:

  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.

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.