Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14530990 | WIRELESS EXPANSION CARD AND METHOD FOR DATA STORAGE | November 2014 | November 2015 | Abandon | 12 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14296403 | DETECTION APPARATUS AND RELATED METHOD | June 2014 | January 2015 | Abandon | 7 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14271524 | MOTHERBOARD WITH CONNECTOR COMPATIBLE WITH DIFFERENT INTERFACE STANDARDS | May 2014 | February 2015 | Abandon | 9 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14193090 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | February 2014 | January 2015 | Abandon | 10 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13865637 | ELECTRONIC TOOL AND METHODS FOR MEETINGS | April 2013 | March 2015 | Abandon | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13861359 | Enlightened Storage Target | April 2013 | October 2014 | Abandon | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13791153 | Semiconductor Device Using Serial ATA Protocol and System Including the Same | March 2013 | March 2015 | Abandon | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13741376 | Method and System for Integrated Circuit Card Device With Reprogrammability | January 2013 | March 2015 | Abandon | 26 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13642952 | COPROCESSOR HAVING TASK SEQUENCE CONTROL | January 2013 | June 2016 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13679941 | BINDING CONTROL DEVICES TO A COMPUTING SYSTEM | November 2012 | May 2016 | Abandon | 42 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 13672756 | CORE SYSTEM FOR PROCESSING AN INTERRUPT AND METHOD FOR TRANSMISSION OF VECTOR REGISTER FILE DATA THEREFOR | November 2012 | May 2016 | Abandon | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13672269 | NAK MODERATION IN USB2/USB1.1 BUSES | November 2012 | October 2015 | Abandon | 35 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13670485 | PCI-EXPRESS DEVICE SERVING MULTIPLE HOSTS | November 2012 | March 2015 | Abandon | 28 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13658667 | FLEXIBLE COMMUNICATIONS | October 2012 | May 2015 | Abandon | 30 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13294897 | INTERFACE CONTROLLER, STORAGE DEVICE, AND TIMEOUT ADJUSTMENT METHOD | November 2011 | October 2012 | Abandon | 11 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13253222 | MECHANISM FOR CO-LOCATED DATA PLACEMENT IN A PARALLEL ELASTIC DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | October 2011 | July 2012 | Abandon | 9 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13227500 | GENERIC HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE PLATFORM FOR ELECTRONIC DEVICES IN MULTIMEDIA, GRAPHICS, AND COMPUTING APPLICATIONS | September 2011 | October 2014 | Abandon | 37 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 13038466 | PATH MAINTENANCE MECHANISM | March 2011 | May 2012 | Abandon | 14 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13021743 | COMMUNICATION APPARATUS | February 2011 | August 2012 | Abandon | 18 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12634127 | COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM AND INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS | December 2009 | May 2012 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12569532 | STORAGE APPARATUS AND OUTPUT SIGNAL GENERATION CIRCUIT | September 2009 | October 2010 | Abandon | 12 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12542566 | INFORMATION PROCESSOR | August 2009 | October 2010 | Abandon | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12496152 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, METHOD FOR CONTROLLING ACTIVATION OF CLASS MODULE, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR CARRYING OUT THE METHOD | July 2009 | September 2012 | Abandon | 38 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12372442 | MEMORY DEVICE | February 2009 | June 2010 | Abandon | 16 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12203935 | NETWORK DEVICE AND ACTIVE CONTROL CARD DETECTING METHOD | September 2008 | February 2011 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11933104 | Extended Memory Card and Manufacturing Method | October 2007 | June 2011 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 11734097 | MAINTAIN OWNING APPLICATION INFORMATION OF DATA FOR A DATA STORAGE SYSTEM | April 2007 | June 2009 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11723151 | Data reading method and data reading apparatus | March 2007 | July 2008 | Abandon | 16 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 11383472 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR STALL MONITORING | May 2006 | March 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner TSAI, HENRY.
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 TSAI, HENRY works in Art Unit 2184 and has examined 29 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 3.4%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 24 months.
Examiner TSAI, HENRY's allowance rate of 3.4% places them in the 1% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by TSAI, HENRY receive 1.62 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 29% 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 TSAI, HENRY is 24 months. This places the examiner in the 81% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -3.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by TSAI, HENRY. This interview benefit is in the 8% 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, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 1% 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 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.
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, 77.8% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 82% 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's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 13% 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 15% 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.