USPTO Examiner ALLI KASIM A - Art Unit 2182

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18717956VECTOR SHUFFLING METHOD, PROCESSOR AND ELECTRONIC DEVICEJune 2024May 2025Allow1110NoNo
18693524ORDER-PRESERVING METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MULTIPLE SETS OF LOAD STORE QUEUES OF PROCESSOR AND RELATED DEVICEMarch 2024December 2024Allow810YesNo
18336704DSB Operation with Excluded RegionJune 2023February 2025Allow2020YesNo
18314655TO-BE-EXECUTED INSTRUCTION PREDICTION METHOD AND SYSTEMMay 2023June 2025Allow2610YesNo
18305173Re-use of Speculative Control Transfer Instruction Results from Wrong PathApril 2023January 2025Allow2110YesNo
18156576INSTRUCTION SET ARCHITECTURE FOR A VECTOR COMPUTATIONAL UNITJanuary 2023June 2023Allow500YesNo
17620527DATA PROCESSING APPARATUS AND RELATED PRODUCTJanuary 2023June 2024Allow3000YesNo
18155555THROTTLING SCHEMES IN MULTICORE MICROPROCESSORSJanuary 2023December 2023Abandon1110NoNo
18061205Data Hazard GenerationDecember 2022September 2024Allow2110YesNo
17937335CONFIGURABLE VECTOR COMPUTE ENGINESeptember 2022October 2024Allow2410NoNo
17620516DATA TRANSFER FOR VECTORS IN NEURAL NETWORKSSeptember 2022June 2025Allow4230YesNo
17956034STORE INSTRUCTION MERGING WITH PATTERN DETECTIONSeptember 2022March 2025Allow3020YesNo
17946113METHOD OF STORING REGISTER DATA ELEMENTS TO INTERLEAVE WITH DATA ELEMENTS OF A DIFFERENT REGISTER, A PROCESSOR THEREOF, AND A SYSTEM THEREOFSeptember 2022September 2024Allow2430YesNo
17931070Program Counter Zero-Cycle LoadsSeptember 2022January 2025Allow2840YesNo
17939518PROVIDING MEMORY PREFETCH INSTRUCTIONS WITH COMPLETION NOTIFICATIONS IN PROCESSOR-BASED DEVICESSeptember 2022April 2025Abandon3120NoNo
17897405STREAMING ENGINE WITH STREAM METADATA SAVING FOR CONTEXT SWITCHINGAugust 2022January 2025Allow2820NoNo
17817593VECTOR COMPUTATIONAL UNITAugust 2022May 2024Allow2120YesNo
17814729Using a Next Fetch Predictor Circuit with Short Branches and Return Fetch GroupsJuly 2022March 2025Allow3231YesNo
17810253Multi-Degree Branch PredictorJune 2022September 2024Allow2720YesNo
17853790ACCELERATING PREDICATED INSTRUCTION EXECUTION IN VECTOR PROCESSORSJune 2022August 2024Allow2520YesNo
17846030PROCESSOR, OPERATION METHOD, AND LOAD-STORE DEVICE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ACCESSING VECTOR STRIDED MEMORYJune 2022September 2024Allow2720YesNo
17807243LOAD REISSUING USING AN ALTERNATE ISSUE QUEUEJune 2022July 2024Allow2520YesNo
17835294BRANCH TARGET BUFFER THAT STORES PREDICTED SET INDEX AND PREDICTED WAY NUMBER OF INSTRUCTION CACHEJune 2022April 2024Allow2310YesNo
17835409DYNAMICALLY FOLDABLE AND UNFOLDABLE INSTRUCTION FETCH PIPELINEJune 2022April 2024Allow2310YesNo
17829909VECTOR COPROCESSOR WITH TIME COUNTER FOR STATICALLY DISPATCHING INSTRUCTIONSJune 2022July 2024Allow2620YesNo
17737794METHOD FOR PREVENTING SECURITY ATTACKS DURING SPECULATIVE EXECUTIONMay 2022March 2024Allow2311YesNo
17737922Registers in Vector Processors to Store Addresses for Accessing VectorsMay 2022November 2023Allow1830YesNo
17725342MICROPROCESSOR WITH NON-CACHEABLE MEMORY LOAD PREDICTIONApril 2022July 2024Allow2720YesNo
17712073CIRCUITRY AND METHODS FOR INFORMING INDIRECT PREFETCHES USING CAPABILITIESApril 2022June 2025Allow3800YesNo
17712018FORWARD CONDITIONAL BRANCH EVENT FOR PROFILE-GUIDED-OPTIMIZATION (PGO)April 2022April 2025Abandon3620YesNo
17704627Array of Pointers PrefetchingMarch 2022March 2024Allow2420YesNo
17693748GENERATING ENCRYPTED CAPABILITIES WITHIN BOUNDSMarch 2022April 2025Abandon3740YesNo
17591134Throttling Schemes in Multicore MicroprocessorsFebruary 2022December 2023Abandon2210NoNo
17569951INFERRING FUTURE VALUE FOR SPECULATIVE BRANCH RESOLUTION IN A MICROPROCESSORJanuary 2022August 2023Allow2010NoNo
17569157DETERMINING A RESTART POINT IN OUT-OF-ORDER EXECUTIONJanuary 2022May 2023Allow1600YesNo
17566157METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR TRACKING INSTRUCTION INFORMATION STORED IN VIRTUAL SUB-ELEMENTS MAPPED TO PHYSICAL SUB-ELEMENTS OF A GIVEN ELEMENTDecember 2021March 2024Allow2720YesNo
17557583PREDICTING UPCOMING CONTROL FLOWDecember 2021April 2025Allow4040YesNo
17548794Memory Select Register to Simplify Operand Mapping in SubroutinesDecember 2021September 2023Allow2110YesNo
17451989COMPUTATIONAL ARRAY MICROPROCESSOR SYSTEM WITH HARDWARE ARBITER MANAGING MEMORY REQUESTSOctober 2021September 2023Allow2320YesNo
17506122CACHE COHERENCE VALIDATION USING DELAYED FULFILLMENT OF L2 REQUESTSOctober 2021August 2024Allow3430YesNo
17469504DSB Operation with Excluded RegionSeptember 2021March 2023Allow1800YesNo
17446678COMPUTING ACCELERATOR FOR PROCESSING MULTIPLE-TYPE INSTRUCTION AND OPERATION METHOD THEREOFSeptember 2021May 2023Allow2110YesNo
17463535MULTIPLE INTERFACES FOR MULTIPLE THREADS OF A HARDWARE MULTI-THREAD MICROPROCESSORAugust 2021May 2024Allow3320YesNo
17459130PREDICATED VECTOR LOAD MICRO-OPERATION FOR PERFORMING A COMPLETE VECTOR LOAD WHEN ISSUED BEFORE A PREDICATE OPERATION IS AVAILABLE AND A PREDETERMINED CONDITION IS UNSATISFIEDAugust 2021March 2023Allow1800YesNo
17407267VARIABLE FORMATTING OF BRANCH TARGET BUFFERAugust 2021April 2024Allow3230YesNo
17406151DYNAMIC ALLOCATION OF EXECUTABLE CODE FOR MULTI-ARCHITECTURE HETEROGENEOUS COMPUTINGAugust 2021December 2022Allow1600YesNo
17345186Clearing Register Data Using a Write Enable SignalJune 2021August 2023Allow2620NoNo
17341192SHARING INSTRUCTION CACHE FOOTPRINT BETWEEN MULTIPLE THREADSJune 2021December 2022Allow1800YesNo
17341209SHARING INSTRUCTION CACHE LINES BETWEEN MULTIPLE THREADSJune 2021December 2022Allow1800YesNo
17335945Processor Supporting Position-Independent AddressingJune 2021September 2024Allow3950YesNo
17329181MICROPROCESSOR AND METHOD FOR SPECULATIVELY ISSUING LOAD/STORE INSTRUCTION WITH NON-DETERMINISTIC ACCESS TIME USING SCOREBOARDMay 2021March 2023Allow2120YesNo
17317862RISC-V ISA BASED MICRO-CONTROLLER UNIT FOR LOW POWER IOT AND EDGE COMPUTING APPLICATIONSMay 2021March 2023Abandon2210NoNo
17241726RESCHEDULING A LOAD INSTRUCTION BASED ON PAST REPLAYSApril 2021March 2025Allow4780YesNo
17241198MECHANISM FOR INTERRUPTING AND RESUMING EXECUTION ON AN UNPROTECTED PIPELINE PROCESSORApril 2021February 2023Allow2210NoNo
17216821IMPLIED FENCE ON STREAM OPENMarch 2021May 2023Allow2620NoNo
17213509MECHANISM TO QUEUE MULTIPLE STREAMS TO RUN ON STREAMING ENGINEMarch 2021October 2023Allow3020NoNo
17271373A RANGE CHECKING INSTRUCTION FOR SETTING A STATUS VALUE INDICATIVE OF WHETHER A FIRST ADDRESS AND SECOND ADDRESS IDENTIFIED BY THE INSTRUCTION CORRESPOND TO THE SAME MEMORY ATTRIBUTE ENTRYFebruary 2021March 2023Allow2520YesNo
17033680CIRCUITRY AND METHODS FOR POWER EFFICIENT GENERATION OF LENGTH MARKERS FOR A VARIABLE LENGTH INSTRUCTION SETSeptember 2020March 2025Allow5320YesNo
17028387Instruction Set Architecture and Microarchitecture for Early Pipeline Re-steering Using Load Address Prediction to Mitigate Branch Misprediction PenaltiesSeptember 2020March 2024Allow4210YesNo
16771376DYNAMIC PROCESSOR ARCHITECTURE CONTROLJune 2020March 2024Allow4541YesNo
16802341DEVICE, PROCESSOR, AND METHOD FOR SPLITTING INSTRUCTIONS AND REGISTER RENAMINGFebruary 2020December 2023Abandon4540YesNo
16773059APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR INHIBITING INSTRUCTION MANIPULATIONJanuary 2020October 2022Allow3210NoNo
16679412LOOP STORAGE CIRCUIT MANAGEMENTNovember 2019October 2023Abandon4741YesNo
16586114APPARATUSES, METHODS, AND SYSTEMS FOR INSTRUCTIONS OF A MATRIX OPERATIONS ACCELERATORSeptember 2019June 2023Abandon4540YesNo
16585964HARDWARE FOR ELIDING SECURITY CHECKS WHEN DEEMED SAFE DURING SPECULATIVE EXECUTIONSeptember 2019October 2023Abandon4840YesYes
16423713LOAD INSTRUCTION WITH TIMEOUTMay 2019May 2023Abandon4860YesNo
16264458PAIR MERGE EXECUTION UNITS FOR MICROINSTRUCTIONSJanuary 2019December 2024Allow60100YesNo
16194981FAMILY OF LOSSY SPARSE LOAD SIMD INSTRUCTIONSNovember 2018January 2023Allow5030YesNo
15855637STREAM PROCESSOR WITH LOW POWER PARALLEL MATRIX MULTIPLY PIPELINEDecember 2017November 2023Allow6060YesNo
15828708SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONVERTING ADJACENT LOAD MICRO-OPERATIONSDecember 2017September 2022Allow5850YesNo
15333696Matrix Processor with Localized MemoryOctober 2016October 2023Abandon6070NoYes
15141703Programmable Vision AcceleratorApril 2016February 2023Allow6080YesYes
14721199THERMAL AVAILABILITY BASED INSTRUCTION ASSIGNMENT FOR EXECUTIONMay 2015June 2018Allow3620YesNo
14719432VECTOR PROCESSOR CONFIGURED TO OPERATE ON VARIABLE LENGTH VECTORS WITH REGISTER RENAMINGMay 2015February 2023Abandon6080YesYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ALLI, KASIM A.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
3
Examiner Affirmed
2
(66.7%)
Examiner Reversed
1
(33.3%)
Reversal Percentile
50.1%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 33.3% 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.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
4
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(25.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
3
(75.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
31.1%
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, 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.

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 shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner ALLI, KASIM A - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner ALLI, KASIM A works in Art Unit 2182 and has examined 72 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 81.9%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 27 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner ALLI, KASIM A's allowance rate of 81.9% places them in the 47% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by ALLI, KASIM A receive 2.47 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 84% 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 ALLI, KASIM A is 27 months. This places the examiner in the 56% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +24.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ALLI, KASIM A. This interview benefit is in the 75% 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, 25.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 31% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 11.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 6% 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, 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 25.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 1% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 1% 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.
  • 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.

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.