Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19341531 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISPLAYING DATA SETS ON A USER INTERFACE | September 2025 | January 2026 | Allow | 3 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 19041894 | INCREMENTAL SEARCH RESULTS FOR SEQUENTIAL PARTIAL DATA QUERIES | January 2025 | October 2025 | Allow | 9 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 19041172 | LOCALLY-STORED VECTOR EMBEDDING DATABASES | January 2025 | February 2026 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18978653 | Split Retrieval Structures For Storing And Querying Data | December 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 10 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18953491 | SELECTION QUERY LANGUAGE METHODS AND SYSTEMS | November 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18920487 | METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR CREATING PARTITION TABLE, AND DATA WRITING AND READING METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR PARTITION TABLE | October 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18779287 | QUORUM-BASED SCALABLE DATABASE SYSTEM | July 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18742848 | HYBRID TIERED STORAGE FOR CLOUD PLATFORMS | June 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 17 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18740463 | SPLITTING A NODE OF A TREE DATA STRUCTURE | June 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18642027 | Foundational Machine Learning Model for Learned Database Tasks | April 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18624367 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR KEY-VALUE SHARD CREATION AND MANAGEMENT IN A KEY-VALUE STORE | April 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18428405 | QUERY EXECUTION USING A DATA PROCESSING SCHEME OF A SEPARATE DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM | January 2024 | September 2025 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18387894 | LOCATION DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM | November 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17775522 | SYSTEM FOR RETRIEVAL OF LARGE DATASETS IN CLOUD ENVIRONMENTS | May 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16937708 | EFFICIENT EVENT-TYPE-BASED DISTRIBUTED LOG-ANALYTICS SYSTEM | July 2020 | April 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16520511 | DYNAMIC RETENTION POLICIES AND OPTIONAL DELETES | July 2019 | March 2021 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16377222 | LOCATION AND CONTENT BASED SEARCH FOR A MOBILE DEVICE | April 2019 | July 2019 | Allow | 60 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16298348 | USER INTERFACE FOR PRESENTING SEARCH RESULTS | March 2019 | August 2020 | Allow | 17 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15982438 | EXTENDING TAGS FOR INFORMATION RESOURCES | May 2018 | January 2021 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15818860 | SEARCHING MULTILINGUAL DOCUMENTS BASED ON DOCUMENT STRUCTURE EXTRACTION | November 2017 | February 2020 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15690644 | MODIFYING ARCHIVE DATA WITHOUT TABLE CHANGES | August 2017 | August 2020 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15625614 | NETWORK SEARCH MAPPING AND EXECUTION | June 2017 | March 2019 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15485095 | DYNAMIC RETENTION POLICIES AND OPTIONAL DELETES | April 2017 | June 2019 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15484090 | Computer-Implemented Method for Automated Operating-System-Specific Access to Software Functionality | April 2017 | April 2019 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15473910 | PICKUP ARTICLE COGNITIVE FITMENT | March 2017 | June 2019 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14744204 | AUTOMATIC ENUMERATION OF DATA ANALYSIS OPTIONS AND RAPID ANALYSIS OF STATISTICAL MODELS | June 2015 | March 2019 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14697563 | COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUGMENTING SEARCH QUERIES USING GLOSSARIES | April 2015 | September 2015 | Allow | 5 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14526461 | FILE STORAGE SYSTEM BASED ON COORDINATED EXHAUSTIBLE AND NON-EXHAUSTIBLE STORAGE | October 2014 | July 2016 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14518506 | AUTOMATIC ENUMERATION OF DATA ANALYSIS OPTIONS AND RAPID ANALYSIS OF STATISTICAL MODELS | October 2014 | February 2019 | Allow | 52 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14267077 | MEDIA EVENT BASED SOCIAL NETWORKING INTERFACES | May 2014 | October 2016 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14142206 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ACCESSING A DATA OBJECT STORED IN A DISTRIBUTED STORAGE NETWORK | December 2013 | February 2016 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14123321 | ALMOST ONLINE LARGE SCALE COLLABORATIVE FILTERING BASED RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM | December 2013 | January 2016 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14092962 | AUTOMATIC SUMMARIZING OF MEDIA CONTENT | November 2013 | August 2016 | Allow | 32 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14016919 | TRANSACTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | September 2013 | October 2015 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13683250 | EXTENDING TAGS FOR INFORMATION RESOURCES | November 2012 | March 2018 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13460421 | ACTIVITIES BASED DYNAMIC DATA PRIORITIZATION | April 2012 | November 2013 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13451730 | VARIANT ENTRIES IN NETWORK DATA REPOSITORIES | April 2012 | November 2014 | Allow | 31 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13330488 | System And Method For Generating, Updating, And Using Meaningful Tags | December 2011 | January 2015 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13050883 | ANALYTIC ENHANCEMENTS TO MODEL CLAUSE IN STRUCTURED QUERY LANGUAGE (SQL) | March 2011 | February 2013 | Allow | 23 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12846463 | TRANSACTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | July 2010 | May 2013 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12834615 | UNIFIED NUMERICAL AND SEMANTIC ANALYTICS SYSTEM FOR DECISION SUPPORT | July 2010 | May 2013 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12648542 | GROUPING AND DIFFERENTIATING FILES BASED ON UNDERLYING GROUPED AND DIFFERENTIATED FILES | December 2009 | August 2013 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12604204 | PROVIDING INCREASED QUALITY OF CONTENT TO A USER OVER TIME | October 2009 | August 2012 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12603492 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DATA EXCHANGE IN A DISTRIBUTED SYSTEM | October 2009 | December 2012 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12526724 | FILE MANAGEMENT METHOD | October 2009 | April 2013 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12473065 | FETCHING OPTIMIZATION IN MULTI-WAY PIPELINED DATABASE JOINS | May 2009 | December 2012 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12404869 | HISTORY BASED SEARCH SERVICE OPERABLE WITH MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS AND SERVICES | March 2009 | January 2012 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12354176 | TRANSITIONING OF DATABASE SRVICE RESPONSIBILITY RESPONSIVE TO SERVER FAILURE IN A PARTIALLY CLUSTERED COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT | January 2009 | May 2011 | Allow | 28 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12260450 | PORTABLE DEVICE,PHOTOGRAPHY PROCESSING METHOD, AND PHOTOGRAPHY PROCESSING SYSTEM HAVING THE SAME | October 2008 | March 2014 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12145536 | STRUCTURED COAUTHORING | June 2008 | November 2012 | Allow | 53 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12144785 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CREATING AN INDEX OF NETWORK DATA FOR A SET OF MESSAGES | June 2008 | March 2012 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12033160 | METHOD AND SYSTEM USING MACHINE LEARNING TO AUTOMATICALLY DISCOVER HOME PAGES ON THE INTERNET | February 2008 | June 2013 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11783586 | ALIAS HIDING IN NETWORK DATA REPOSITORIES | April 2007 | April 2015 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11536962 | GENERIC SEQUENCING SERVICE FOR BUSINESS INTEGRATION | September 2006 | August 2010 | Allow | 47 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11540048 | RECLAIMING DATA SPACE BY REWRITING METADATA | September 2006 | May 2013 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11474195 | USER-SENSITIVE PAGERANK | June 2006 | September 2009 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11407487 | DYNAMIC RSS SERVICES | April 2006 | December 2011 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11305423 | ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE (EDI) SCHEMA SIMPLIFICATION INTERFACE | December 2005 | April 2009 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11306016 | DISTRIBUTED METHOD FOR SYNCHRONIZING AND UPDATING BOOKMARKS ON MULTIPLE COMPUTER DEVICES | December 2005 | January 2011 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11274840 | MONITORING USER SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON WEBSITES | November 2005 | December 2008 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11078590 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING ATTRIBUTE-BASED SELECTABLE SEARCH EXTENSION | March 2005 | February 2009 | Allow | 47 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11078137 | Method of quickly identifying availability of rental properties being advertised on the internet | March 2005 | October 2007 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11070881 | System and method for predicting the ranking of items | March 2005 | December 2007 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner RICHARDSON, JAMES E.
With a 50.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is above the USPTO average, indicating that appeals have better success here than typical.
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, 25.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable reconsideration.
✓ 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 shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner RICHARDSON, JAMES E works in Art Unit 2169 and has examined 49 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 93.9%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.
Examiner RICHARDSON, JAMES E's allowance rate of 93.9% places them in the 82% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by RICHARDSON, JAMES E receive 2.41 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 69% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by RICHARDSON, JAMES E 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 +17.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by RICHARDSON, JAMES E. This interview benefit is in the 59% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 35.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 79% 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 39.1% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 60% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 6% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.
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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 33.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 20% 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 14.3% of allowed cases (in the 96% 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.