Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18584678 | SET OPERATIONS USING MULTI-CORE PROCESSING UNIT | February 2024 | February 2025 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17423649 | RANDOMIZED DIGITAL DATA STREAM GENERATION DEVICE AND METHOD | July 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 40 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17197472 | DIGITAL FILTER, AUDIO SIGNAL PROCESSING SYSTEM, AND METHOD OF DESIGNING DIGITAL FILTER | March 2021 | December 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17149643 | COMPRESSED MATRIX WITH SPARSITY METADATA | January 2021 | December 2024 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16963686 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD, AND PROGRAM | July 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 57 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16664120 | CONFIGURABLE CONVOLUTION ENGINE FOR INTERLEAVED CHANNEL DATA | October 2019 | February 2020 | Allow | 4 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16592576 | CALCULATING DEVICE, CALCULATING METHOD, AND COMPUTER READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM | October 2019 | February 2020 | Allow | 5 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16586164 | Matrix and Vector Multiplication Operation Method and Apparatus | September 2019 | September 2020 | Abandon | 11 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16564366 | MULTIPLICATION OPERATIONS IN MEMORY | September 2019 | March 2020 | Allow | 6 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16563063 | MULTIPLICATION OPERATIONS IN MEMORY | September 2019 | February 2020 | Allow | 6 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16551710 | Transmission Of Information Through The Use Of Quantum-Optical Effects Within A Multi-Layered Birefringent Structure | August 2019 | February 2020 | Allow | 6 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16520108 | Approximating Functions | July 2019 | December 2019 | Allow | 5 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16505086 | INTERNET-ENABLED AUDIO VISUAL GRAPHING CALCULATOR | July 2019 | July 2020 | Abandon | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16454369 | INTERNALLY TRUNCATED MULTIPLIER | June 2019 | December 2019 | Allow | 6 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16385917 | Multiply-Accumulate Circuit | April 2019 | July 2020 | Abandon | 15 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16385979 | Resistive Matrix Computation Circuit | April 2019 | July 2020 | Abandon | 15 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16385933 | Scalable Matrix Computation Circuit | April 2019 | July 2020 | Abandon | 15 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16365060 | OUTPUT VALUE GENERATOR CIRCUIT, PROCESSOR, OUTPUT VALUE GENERATION METHOD AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | March 2019 | March 2020 | Abandon | 12 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16291245 | FIXED POINT TO FLOATING POINT CONVERSION | March 2019 | January 2020 | Allow | 10 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16252367 | Partially and Fully Parallel Normaliser | January 2019 | February 2020 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16171289 | Apparatus and Methods for Comparing Vectors | October 2018 | November 2019 | Abandon | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16168667 | INTEGRATED CIRCUITS WITH SPECIALIZED PROCESSING BLOCKS FOR PERFORMING FLOATING-POINT FAST FOURIER TRANSFORMS AND COMPLEX MULTIPLICATION | October 2018 | January 2020 | Allow | 15 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16003980 | ADAPTIVE FILTER METHOD, SYSTEM AND APPARATUS | June 2018 | September 2020 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16000435 | ENHANCED LOW PRECISION BINARY FLOATING-POINT FORMATTING | June 2018 | January 2020 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15983043 | LOW LATENCY MATRIX MULTIPLY UNIT | May 2018 | January 2020 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15982987 | PERFORMANCE POWER OPTIMIZED FULL ADDER | May 2018 | February 2020 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15978095 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COMPRESSION AND DECOMPRESSION OF A NUMERICAL FILE | May 2018 | May 2020 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15977544 | METHODS AND CIRCUITS FOR GENERATING PARALLEL PSEUDORANDOM BINARY SEQUENCES | May 2018 | January 2020 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15975675 | MITIGATING DETERMINISTIC ASYMMETRY IN A RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR | May 2018 | November 2019 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15958265 | HIGH-PERFORMANCE SPARSE TRIANGULAR SOLVE ON GRAPHICS PROCESSING UNITS | April 2018 | February 2020 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15886505 | GENERATING RANDOMNESS IN NEURAL NETWORKS | February 2018 | November 2019 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15564202 | Run-Time Parallelization of Code Execution Based on an Approximate Register-Access Specification | October 2017 | November 2019 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15667264 | MANAGING AN ISSUE QUEUE FOR FUSED INSTRUCTIONS AND PAIRED INSTRUCTIONS IN A MICROPROCESSOR | August 2017 | April 2019 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15445677 | TOKEN BASED INSTRUCTION EXECUTION | February 2017 | December 2019 | Abandon | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15273481 | PIECEWISE POLYNOMIAL EVALUATION INSTRUCTION | September 2016 | July 2020 | Abandon | 45 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15168338 | Estimation of Hidden Variance Distribution Parameters | May 2016 | December 2017 | Abandon | 19 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15079784 | EXCEPTION HANDLING IN PROCESSOR USING BRANCH DELAY SLOT INSTRUCTION SET ARCHITECTURE | March 2016 | February 2020 | Abandon | 47 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 15051271 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SOLVING THE LAGRANGIAN DUAL OF A BINARY POLYNOMIALLY CONSTRAINED POLYNOMIAL PROGRAMMING PROBLEM USING A QUANTUM ANNEALER | February 2016 | March 2020 | Abandon | 49 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15014576 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SOLVING THE LAGRANGIAN DUAL OF A CONSTRAINED BINARY QUADRATIC PROGRAMMING PROBLEM USING A QUANTUM ANNEALER | February 2016 | July 2020 | Abandon | 53 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15006674 | METHOD FOR COMPUTING CONFORMAL PARAMETERIZATION | January 2016 | January 2018 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14924847 | METHOD FOR SOLVING HIGH-DIMENSIONAL NONLINEAR FILTERING PROBLEM | October 2015 | October 2017 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14737542 | APPARATUS FOR EFFICIENT FREQUENCY MEASUREMENT | June 2015 | November 2017 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14721367 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR COMPUTATION OF BILEVEL MIXED INTEGER PROGRAMMING PROBLEMS | May 2015 | December 2017 | Abandon | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14618860 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR COMPRESSING DIGITAL DATA | February 2015 | November 2017 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14395087 | SIGNAL PROCESSING DEVICE, SIGNAL PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM | October 2014 | November 2017 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14103180 | DATA TRANSFORMATION DEVICE, DATA TRANSFORMATION METHOD, AND PROGRAM | December 2013 | September 2017 | Abandon | 45 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13995520 | ASYNCHRONOUS DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING BASED SYSTEM | October 2013 | June 2018 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13992530 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR SELECTING ELEMENTS OF A VECTOR COMPUTATION | June 2013 | December 2017 | Abandon | 54 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 12292982 | LENS BARREL AND IMAGE PICKUP APPARATUS | December 2008 | October 2009 | Allow | 10 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10357632 | Flexible vector modes of operation for SIMD processor | February 2003 | January 2007 | Abandon | 47 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CALDWELL, ANDREW T.
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 CALDWELL, ANDREW T works in Art Unit 2182 and has examined 49 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 38.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 21 months.
Examiner CALDWELL, ANDREW T's allowance rate of 38.8% places them in the 4% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by CALDWELL, ANDREW T receive 1.69 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 48% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by CALDWELL, ANDREW T is 21 months. This places the examiner in the 84% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -14.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CALDWELL, ANDREW T. This interview benefit is in the 1% 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, 10.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 2% 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 13.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 8% 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.
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 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, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 60% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.
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.
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.