Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18957803 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING OUTLIER DATA AND GENERATING CORRECTIVE ACTION | November 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 7 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18798933 | Using User Equipment Data Clusters and Spatial Temporal Graphs of Abnormalities for Root Cause Analysis | August 2024 | August 2025 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18789361 | ENHANCED ERROR HANDLING IN MEMORY SYSTEMS | July 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18775572 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SYSTEM EVENT CONFLICT IDENTIFICATION | July 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18759312 | PROVIDING EXTREMELY HIGH READ AVAILABILITY IN A TELECOMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT | June 2024 | July 2025 | Allow | 13 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18659113 | APPARATUSES, METHODS, AND SYSTEMS FOR DETECTING AN UNRESPONSIVE CLIENT | May 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18646979 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD | April 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18641290 | APPARATUS WITH CHAINED STORAGE MANAGEMENT MECHANISM AND METHODS FOR OPERATING THE SAME | April 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18636862 | CONTACTOR INTEGRATION AND PERFORMANCE VALIDATION WITH HARDWARE-IN-THE-LOOP TEST BENCH | April 2024 | May 2025 | Allow | 13 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18563160 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ENCODING AND DECODING SIGNAL IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING SAME | November 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18504234 | APPARATUSES AND METHODS FOR ENHANCED METADATA SUPPORT | November 2023 | July 2025 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18500596 | INFORMATION PROCESSOR, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | November 2023 | December 2025 | Abandon | 25 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 18555714 | INTEGRATED CIRCUIT MEMORY DEVICES WITH UNIDIRECTIONAL PORTS FOR CONCURRENT INTERFACE OPERATIONS | October 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18551596 | DATA HANDLING DURING A REFLOW OPERATION | September 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18463404 | ENCODING AND DECODING METHOD AND APPARATUS | September 2023 | July 2025 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18169124 | TECHNIQUES FOR MAINTAINING SNAPSHOT DATA CONSISTENCY DURING FILE SYSTEM CROSS-REGION REPLICATION | February 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 25 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17964807 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING NATURAL LANGUAGE QUERY ABOUT RELATIONAL DATABASE USING TRANSFORMER NEURAL NETWORK | October 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17647292 | PROVIDING CONTACT INFORMATION AND CONNECTION HISTORY WITH COLLABORATION APPLICATIONS | January 2022 | May 2024 | Abandon | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17503776 | GENERATING PLAYLISTS USING CALENDAR, LOCATION AND EVENT DATA | October 2021 | July 2024 | Abandon | 32 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17489844 | ASSESSING IF RECORDS FROM DIFFERENT DATA SOURCES REPRESENT A SAME ENTITY | September 2021 | March 2024 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13843067 | PLUGGABLE STORAGE SYSTEM FOR DISTRIBUTED FILE SYSTEMS | March 2013 | January 2016 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10961410 | Tool for synchronization of business information | October 2004 | October 2012 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BEAUSOLIEL JR, ROBERT W.
With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.
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.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner BEAUSOLIEL JR, ROBERT W works in Art Unit 2167 and has examined 4 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 25.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.
Examiner BEAUSOLIEL JR, ROBERT W's allowance rate of 25.0% places them in the 3% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by BEAUSOLIEL JR, ROBERT W receive 3.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 86% 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 BEAUSOLIEL JR, ROBERT W 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 -50.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BEAUSOLIEL JR, ROBERT W. This interview benefit is in the 0% 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, 8.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 4% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show lower effectiveness with this examiner compared to others. Consider whether a continuation application might be more strategic, especially if you need to add new matter or significantly broaden claims.
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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 2% 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 12% 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.