Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19170852 | Associativity and Resolution of Computer-Based Models and Data | April 2025 | November 2025 | Allow | 7 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 19064936 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING LIMIT SCOURING STATE OF RIVERBED IN DOWNSTREAM RIVER CHANNEL OF RESERVOIR GROUP | February 2025 | January 2026 | Abandon | 11 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18687397 | DETERMINING CARBON EMISSIONS AT A WELLBORE | February 2024 | January 2026 | Abandon | 22 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17826393 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR NOTCHING A TARGET WELLBORE IN A SUBSURFACE FORMATION | May 2022 | November 2025 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17692336 | Method and System for Planning Implant Component Position | March 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17683286 | METHOD OF GROUPING CONNECTIONS BETWEEN MEMBERS IN A CONSTRUCTION MODELLING PROGRAM | February 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17592937 | METHODS FOR REALISTIC AND EFFICIENT SIMULATION OF MOVING OBJECTS | February 2022 | December 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17335571 | LAPLACE-FOURIER 1.5D FORWARD MODELING USING AN ADAPTIVE SAMPLING TECHNIQUE | June 2021 | March 2026 | Abandon | 57 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17184882 | ARITHMETIC METHOD AND ARITHMETIC DEVICE | February 2021 | February 2026 | Abandon | 59 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17163436 | TRIAL DESIGN WITH SIMULATED ANNEALING | January 2021 | March 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17248470 | Discontinuous Interpolation Using Continuous Formulation, C1 or C0 FEM Discretization, and Scalable Solver | January 2021 | November 2025 | Abandon | 58 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17102605 | System And Method For Real-Time Drilling Or Milling Optimization | November 2020 | December 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16891602 | MULTI-ELECTRODE ELECTRON EXCITATION BASED SIMULATION METHOD FOR NON-EQUILIBRIUM ELECTRONIC STRUCTURES OF NANODEVICES AND APPARATUS THEREFORE | June 2020 | December 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16566802 | SIMULATION SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES | September 2019 | April 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13323644 | STRUT AND TIE METHOD FOR WAFFLE SLABS | December 2011 | March 2014 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13154723 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR FORECASTING USAGE COSTS AND COMPUTER CAPACITY | June 2011 | December 2012 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13108008 | SATISFIABILITY (SAT) BASED BOUNDED MODEL CHECKERS | May 2011 | March 2013 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13092291 | METHOD FOR INPUTTING A SPATIAL LAYOUT OF PRODUCTION DEVICES TO A COMPUTER-AIDED PLANNING PROGRAM AND FOR OPTIMIZING THE LATTER | April 2011 | February 2014 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12981432 | FAST TRACKING METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR AIR TRAFFIC MODELING USING A MONOTONIC LAGRANGIAN GRID | December 2010 | May 2012 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12755114 | DETERMINE FIELD FRACTURES USING GEOMECHANICAL FORWARD MODELING | April 2010 | April 2013 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12493110 | PREDICTIVE MODELING OF CONTACT AND VIA MODULES FOR ADVANCED ON-CHIP INTERCONNECT TECHNOLOGY | June 2009 | March 2013 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12468622 | MAPPING BETWEEN STRESS-TEST SYSTEMS AND REAL WORLD SYSTEMS | May 2009 | June 2013 | Allow | 49 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11742620 | IC CHIP PARAMETER MODELING | May 2007 | April 2010 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11652043 | TIMING ANALYSIS METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ENHANCING ACCURACY OF TIMING ANALYSIS AND IMPROVING WORK EFFICIENCY THEREOF | January 2007 | May 2011 | Allow | 52 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11526744 | METHOD FOR SIMULATING FLUID FLOWS WITHIN A MEDIUM DISCRETIZED BY A HYBRID GRID | September 2006 | April 2010 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11462856 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR THE RIGID REGISTRATION OF 3D EAR IMPRESSION SHAPES WITH SKELETONS | August 2006 | June 2011 | Allow | 58 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11462869 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR APERTURE DETECTION OF 3D HEARING AID SHELLS | August 2006 | May 2011 | Allow | 58 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11462804 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR THE REGISTRATION OF 3D EAR IMPRESSION MODELS | August 2006 | November 2011 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 11112437 | METHOD FOR MODELING AND TESTING A SECURITY SYSTEM | April 2005 | July 2007 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 10954622 | EMULATING A HOST ARCHITECTURE IN GUEST FIRMWARE | September 2004 | April 2009 | Allow | 54 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10944321 | CONFIGURATION SYSTEM AND METHOD | September 2004 | December 2009 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10933218 | MEMORY MANAGEMENT METHOD FOR DYNAMIC CONVERSION TYPE EMULATOR | September 2004 | July 2009 | Allow | 58 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 10932406 | CIRCUIT ANALYSIS UTILIZING RANK REVEALING FACTORIZATION | September 2004 | May 2009 | Allow | 56 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 10832226 | GATE-LEVEL NETLIST REDUCTION FOR SIMULATING TARGET MODULES OF A DESIGN | April 2004 | June 2009 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 10806612 | MAGNETORESISTIVE RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY SIMULATION | March 2004 | July 2007 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10762499 | ITERATIVE ABSTRACTION USING SAT-BASED BMC WITH PROOF ANALYSIS | January 2004 | April 2010 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10717273 | SYSTEM, METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR DETERMINING WALL THICKNESS IN GRAPHIC MODEL | November 2003 | September 2008 | Allow | 57 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 10700976 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR VIRTUAL INJECTION OF NETWORK APPLICATION CODES INTO NETWORK SIMULATION | November 2003 | December 2008 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 10452498 | METHODS FOR ESTIMATING POWER REQUIREMENTS OF CIRCUIT DESIGNS | June 2003 | August 2007 | Allow | 50 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10448724 | ESTABLISHING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN COMPONENTS IN SIMULATION SYSTEMS | May 2003 | February 2010 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10418220 | SIMULATION METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DESIGN OF APERTURE IN EXPOSURE APPARATUS AND RECORDING MEDIUM IN WHICH THE SIMULATION METHOD IS RECORDED | April 2003 | January 2008 | Allow | 57 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10303427 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETECTING ACCESSES TO NON-EXISTING HARDWARE ENTITIES USING ARCHITECTURAL SIMULATION | November 2002 | July 2006 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10302203 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SIMULATING A MAGNETORESISTIVE RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY (MRAM) | November 2002 | May 2006 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10299129 | DEBUG METHOD FOR MISMATCHES OCCURRING DURING THE SIMULATION OF SCAN PATTERNS | November 2002 | April 2009 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10291508 | METHOD FOR LOGIC CHECKING TO CHECK OPERATION OF CIRCUIT TO BE CONNECTED TO BUS | November 2002 | April 2009 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 10287860 | TEST QUALITY THROUGH RESOURCE REALLOCATION | November 2002 | August 2006 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10139242 | METHOD OF DETERMINING BY NUMERICAL SIMULATION THE RESTORATION CONDITIONS, BY THE FLUIDS OF A RESERVOIR, OF A COMPLEX WELL DAMAGED BY DRILLING OPERATIONS | May 2002 | April 2006 | Allow | 47 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10125217 | PARTITIONING A MODEL INTO A PLURALITY OF INDEPENDENT PARTITIONS TO BE PROCESSED WITHIN A DISTRIBUTED ENVIRONMENT | April 2002 | June 2006 | Allow | 50 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10125198 | COUPLER INTERFACE FOR FACILITATING DISTRIBUTED SIMULATION OF A PARTITIONED LOGIC DESIGN | April 2002 | January 2007 | Allow | 57 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 10124982 | FACILITATING SIMULATION OF A MODEL WITHIN A DISTRIBUTED ENVIRONMENT | April 2002 | August 2006 | Allow | 52 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10120608 | COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT AND A CARRIER FOR SUPPORTING A USER DESIGNING A HYDRAULIC CYLINDER BY INDICATING PREFERRED COMPONENTS OF SEALS, RINGS AND BEARINGS | April 2002 | July 2007 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS.
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.
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, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting 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 is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS works in Art Unit 2186 and has examined 44 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 86.4%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 57 months.
Examiner OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS's allowance rate of 86.4% places them in the 64% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS receive 2.68 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 79% 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.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS is 57 months. This places the examiner in the 1% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -21.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS. 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, 26.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 43% 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.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 33.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 49% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 33.3% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 33% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show below-average success with this examiner. Consider whether your arguments are strong enough to warrant a PAC request.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 72.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 61% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 37.5% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows above-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. The mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) provides an opportunity for reconsideration.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 2% 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 31.8% of allowed cases (in the 100% 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 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.