USPTO Examiner MUHEBBULLAH SAJEDA - Art Unit 2174

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
16793926SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ATTRIBUTING A SCROLL EVENT IN AN INFINITE SCROLL GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACEFebruary 2020November 2024Allow5760YesYes
16001629METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR RECONCILING USER INTERACTIONSJune 2018December 2024Allow60110YesNo
12888007Electronic Device, Content Reproduction Method, and Program ThereforSeptember 2010June 2014Allow4420YesYes
12510019Graphical User Interface Having Sound Effects For Operating Control Elements and Dragging ObjectsJuly 2009January 2014Allow5440YesNo
12127341USER MANUAL SUPPORTING METHOD AND APPARATUS USING ERROR PATTERN ANALYSISMay 2008February 2012Abandon4510NoNo
12127164EXPLICIT USE OF USER CONTEXT OBJECTS IN A VIRTUAL UNIVERSEMay 2008March 2014Allow6030YesNo
12013207INTERACTIVE VIDEO TOUR SYSTEM EDITORJanuary 2008September 2011Abandon4510NoNo
12013095FINGERPRINT LOCATION INDICATORJanuary 2008February 2016Allow6050YesNo
11775097DRAGGABLE MECHANISM FOR IDENTIFYING AND COMMUNICATING THE STATE OF AN APPLICATIONJuly 2007August 2011Abandon5020NoNo
11774108Method, Apparatus and Computer Program Product for Providing Presentation of a Media CollectionJuly 2007July 2011Abandon4820NoNo
11774110INTELLIGENT MUSIC TRACK SELECTION IN A NETWORKED ENVIRONMENTJuly 2007January 2011Abandon4310NoNo
11769170DISPLAY OF HIERARCHICAL DATA WITH NON-NUMERIC MEASURESJune 2007February 2011Allow4320NoNo
11716782Method and device for fast access to application in mobile communication terminalMarch 2007March 2010Abandon3710NoNo
11681427MULTIFUNCTION APPARATUS, SERVER, AND SERVER SYSTEMMarch 2007November 2008Abandon2020NoNo
11669501GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE USING PERCEPTION-ACTION ICONS AND A METHOD THEREOFJanuary 2007January 2011Abandon4820NoNo
10560991Virtual desktopDecember 2006December 2009Abandon4810NoNo
11379647INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE OF VOGUE SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SHARED INTEGRATED ONLINE SOCIAL INTERACTIONApril 2006December 2010Allow5660YesNo
11379389METHODS AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR SUPPLEMENTING STATIC CONTENTSApril 2006December 2009Abandon4420YesNo
11374921Information processing apparatus and image display program productMarch 2006October 2009Abandon4310NoNo
11015088Flexible and extensible combination user interfacesDecember 2004March 2010Abandon6070YesNo
10949235Calendar channelSeptember 2004November 2009Abandon6030YesNo
10945537RESPONSIVE USER INTERFACE TO MANAGE A NON-RESPONSIVE APPLICATIONSeptember 2004August 2009Allow5930YesNo
10897176BROWSER BACK AND FORTH NAVIGATIONJuly 2004February 2009Allow5460NoNo
10885157Problem solving support apparatus and programJuly 2004June 2008Abandon4710NoNo
10765742Systems and methods for interfacing with computer devicesJanuary 2004June 2009Abandon6040YesNo
10757291METHOD, SYSTEM, SOFTWARE, AND SIGNAL FOR AUTOMATIC GENERATION OF MACRO COMMANDSJanuary 2004May 2008Allow5220YesNo
10730957Personalized desktop workspace icon organizerDecember 2003March 2010Abandon6020NoYes
10730647ELECTRONIC COMMERCE GUI FOR DISPLAYING TRADING PARTNERSDecember 2003October 2010Allow6080YesNo
10663688MULTIFUNCATION APPARATUS HAVING AT LEAST A COPYING FUNCTION, SERVER, SERVER, SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING MULTIFUNCTION APPARATUS.September 2003January 2012Abandon6040YesYes
10664293Method and arrangement of user-modified variables in a presentation listSeptember 2003July 2009Abandon6060NoNo
10663590METHOD OF BALANCING DISPLAY PANEL COLOUR USE USING A SCREEN SAVERSeptember 2003November 2008Abandon6040NoNo
10663640Enhancements for manipulating two-dimensional windows within a three-dimensional display modelSeptember 2003August 2009Abandon6060YesYes
10406188Synchronized processing of views and drawing tools in a multiple document interface applicationApril 2003July 2007Abandon5110NoNo
10406335Twice click method for processing dataApril 2003February 2007Abandon4710NoNo
10406378Program creation by combining web services using graphic user interface controlsApril 2003February 2008Abandon5830NoNo
10340336Activity record maintenance and display toolJanuary 2003September 2005Abandon3310NoNo
10335763Method and system to display, modify or substitute the contents of self-describing objectsJanuary 2003July 2010Abandon6020YesYes
10335773Software tool for providing a demonstration screenJanuary 2003February 2007Abandon4910NoNo
10335591STREAMING ALGORITHM THAT POPULATES USER INFORMATION FROM DATABASE BASED ON SCROLLING ACTIVITYDecember 2002April 2008Allow6030NoYes
10301179Portable terminal unitNovember 2002July 2006Abandon4410NoNo
10182591INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, MENU DISPLAYING METHOD AND PROGRAM STORING MEDIUMOctober 2002January 2009Allow6060NoNo
10283135Method and apparatus for assisting the reading of a documentOctober 2002March 2007Abandon5220NoNo
10282684System and method for designing storage area networksOctober 2002August 2006Abandon4610NoNo
10282581System and method for providing network access to devices using numeric inputOctober 2002August 2006Abandon4510NoNo
10232699Method and apparatus for controlling an electronic device via a menu displayed on a display screen of the electronic deviceSeptember 2002June 2009Abandon6070NoNo
10232400Display system and display method that renders construction view of an object, and recording media thereofSeptember 2002December 2006Abandon5120NoNo
10201653Method for creating configurable and customizable web user interfacesJuly 2002February 2009Abandon6060YesYes
09991416On-screen display area enabling media convergence useful for viewers and audio/visual programmersNovember 2001March 2005Abandon4010NoNo
09992773Enhanced user interface for a remote terminalNovember 2001August 2006Abandon5831NoNo
10045241Method of connecting people for social interactionNovember 2001September 2005Abandon4720NoNo
09986378DEVICE AND SYSTEM FOR INFORMATION MANAGEMENT UTILIZING A FILING APPLIANCENovember 2001May 2006Allow5530YesYes
09942754Modifying only selected icons on an interactive display screen crowed with icons by rendering the non-selected icons unmodifiableAugust 2001March 2005Abandon4310NoNo
09942744METHOD, SYSTEM, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR ELECTRONIC MESSAGING MAIL LIST MANAGEMENTAugust 2001February 2005Allow4220NoNo
09942376System and method for managing graphical componentsAugust 2001December 2004Abandon3910NoNo
09870373METHOD OF GRAPHICALLY INDICATING PATIENT INFORMATIONMay 2001March 2006Allow5830YesNo
09855361Method and system for scaling a graphical user interface (GUI) widget based on selection pointer proximityMay 2001May 2004Abandon3610NoNo
09855365Method and system for graphical user interface (GUI) widget having user-selectable massMay 2001December 2004Abandon4320NoNo
09855099Computer assisted text input systemMay 2001August 2006Abandon6020NoNo
09854577Method and apparatus for indexing, searching and displaying dataMay 2001March 2005Abandon4660YesYes
09853650GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE HAVING SOUND EFFECTS FOR OPERATING CONTROL ELEMENTS AND DRAGGING OBJECTSMay 2001March 2009Allow6090NoYes
09854426Analysis mechanism for genetic dataMay 2001December 2004Abandon4310NoNo
09854037Picture stackMay 2001April 2006Abandon5950NoNo
09849653Editing system, editing method, clip management device, and clip management methodMay 2001March 2010Abandon60110NoYes
09849832EDITING SYSTEM, EDITING METHOD, CLIP MANAGEMENT DEVICE, AND CLIP MANAGEMENT METHODMay 2001December 2006Allow6040NoNo

Appeals Overview

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

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
3
Examiner Affirmed
3
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
4.8%
Lower than average

What This Means

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.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
16
Allowed After Appeal Filing
3
(18.8%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
13
(81.2%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
24.2%
Lower 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, 18.8% 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.

Strategic Recommendations

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 MUHEBBULLAH, SAJEDA - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner MUHEBBULLAH, SAJEDA works in Art Unit 2174 and has examined 64 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 29.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 52 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner MUHEBBULLAH, SAJEDA's allowance rate of 29.7% places them in the 5% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by MUHEBBULLAH, SAJEDA receive 3.22 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 88% 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 MUHEBBULLAH, SAJEDA is 52 months. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +40.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MUHEBBULLAH, SAJEDA. 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 12.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 9% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 14.6% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 17% 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, 66.7% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 55% 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 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 48% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 83.3% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 91% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 6.2% of allowed cases (in the 89% 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 14% 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:

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.
  • Examiner cooperation: This examiner frequently makes examiner's amendments to place applications in condition for allowance. If you are close to allowance, the examiner may help finalize the claims.

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.