Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18930012 | AUTOMATED PROGRAM GENERATOR FOR DATABASE OPERATIONS | October 2024 | July 2025 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18738832 | STORAGE DEVICE PERFORMING COPY OPERATION IN BACKGROUND AND OPERATING METHOD THEREOF | June 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18503957 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ESTABLISHING AND ENFORCING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ITEMS | November 2023 | September 2025 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17824680 | METHOD FOR FAST AND BETTER TREE SEARCH FOR REINFORCEMENT LEARNING | May 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 44 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17162722 | DOCUMENT PACKAGE MODIFICATIONS BASED ON ASSIGNED PERMISSIONS IN A DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT PLATFORM | January 2021 | August 2024 | Abandon | 42 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16518050 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | July 2019 | June 2023 | Abandon | 46 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15945724 | PROOF OF TICKET CONSENSUS PROCESSING ON A CONFIDENTIAL BLOCKCHAIN NETWORK | April 2018 | January 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13174823 | METHOD FOR ATTACHING PARTITION ONLINE TO RANGE PARTITIONED TABLE | July 2011 | August 2013 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13171767 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ENHANCING WEBPAGE BROWSING | June 2011 | June 2013 | Allow | 24 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11222886 | METHOD FOR DYNAMIC SEMI-JOIN PROCESSING WITH RUNTIME OPTIMIZATION | September 2005 | March 2009 | Allow | 42 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11046693 | INTEGRATION OF A NON-RELATIONAL QUERY LANGUAGE WITH A RELATIONAL DATA STORE | January 2005 | May 2009 | Allow | 51 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11046278 | PROCESSING CROSS-TABLE NON-BOOLEAN TERM CONDITIONS IN DATABASE QUERIES | January 2005 | April 2008 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10847957 | Method for allocating data to a database to provide selective access and its application to geophysical data | May 2004 | June 2007 | Abandon | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10832657 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING A PEER INDEXING SERVICE | April 2004 | August 2008 | Allow | 52 | 0 | 0 | No | 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 BADAWI, SHERIEF works in Art Unit 2169 and has examined 10 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 60.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.
Examiner BADAWI, SHERIEF's allowance rate of 60.0% places them in the 20% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by BADAWI, SHERIEF receive 2.60 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 76% 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 BADAWI, SHERIEF is 42 months. This places the examiner in the 18% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +40.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BADAWI, SHERIEF. This interview benefit is in the 87% 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.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 38% 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 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.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 10.0% of allowed cases (in the 93% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
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.