Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18907354 | DYNAMICALLY VALIDATING AI APPLICATIONS FOR COMPLIANCE | October 2024 | November 2025 | Abandon | 13 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18732246 | CODEBASE BEHAVIORAL MODEL USER INTERFACE | June 2024 | January 2026 | Abandon | 19 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18312826 | TESTING FRAMEWORK WITH DYNAMIC APPLICABILITY MANAGEMENT | May 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18309570 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SELECTING TEST COMBINATIONS OF HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE FEATURES FOR FEATURE VALIDATION | April 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18121910 | CONTROLLING INSTALLATION OF DRIVERS BASED ON HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE COMPONENTS PRESENT ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ASSETS | March 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18175414 | DEFERRED CREATION OF REMOTE DEBUGGING SESSIONS | February 2023 | December 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18166610 | SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND DEVICES FOR A VENDOR-AGNOSTIC FRAMEWORK FOR AUTOMATED VALIDATION OF APPLICATIONS | February 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 33 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18096191 | OPTIMIZING COMPONENTS FOR MULTI-CLOUD APPLICATIONS WITH DEEP LEARNING MODELS | January 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18089082 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FRONTEND WEB APPLICATION CREATION FOR A CLOUD COMPUTING PLATFORM | December 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17854375 | CONFIGURATION-BASED SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HANDLING TRANSIENT DATA IN COMPLEX SYSTEMS | June 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17741023 | AUTOMATIC SENSING AND ADJUSTMENT OF A BED SYSTEM | May 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17695134 | AUTOMATIC METAMORPHIC TESTING | March 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 43 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17635300 | PATCH RELEASE METHOD, SERVER, AND TERMINAL DEVICE | February 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 49 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17545577 | REDUCING TIME TO TEST CYCLE FIRST FAIL | December 2021 | February 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 17032556 | COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR TEST AUTOMATION OF AN APPLICATION UNDER TEST | September 2020 | November 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16774019 | COMPILER AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD FOR DELETING SPILL INSTRUCTIONS | January 2020 | January 2021 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16457906 | METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR RECOMMENDING COMPUTER PROGRAM UPDATES UTILIZING A TRAINED MODEL | June 2019 | January 2021 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16241180 | SELECTIVE STACK TRACE GENERATION DURING JAVA EXCEPTION HANDLING | January 2019 | February 2021 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15920037 | AUTOMATION OF WATER FLOW IN NETWORKS | March 2018 | November 2019 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15865477 | FILTER TRACE BASED ON FUNCTION LEVEL | January 2018 | June 2020 | Allow | 29 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15840338 | COGNITIVE REDUNDANT CODING CORPUS DETERMINATION SYSTEM | December 2017 | March 2019 | Allow | 15 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15804522 | COGNITIVE REDUNDANT CODING CORPUS DETERMINATION SYSTEM | November 2017 | March 2019 | Allow | 16 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15626414 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING AN INSTALLER TO A PRINTING APPARATUS VIA A PRINTING APPARATUS URI | June 2017 | July 2020 | Allow | 37 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15047161 | CONDITIONAL BRANCH INSTRUCTION COMPACTION FOR REGIONAL CODE SIZE REDUCTION | February 2016 | June 2018 | Allow | 28 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14872363 | PORTABLE DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCTION CONTROL AND QUALITY CONTROL | October 2015 | August 2020 | Allow | 59 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14859365 | SYSTEM AND/OR METHOD FOR COMPUTING INTERPROCEDURAL DOMINATORS | September 2015 | March 2017 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14726376 | CODE CACHING SYSTEM | May 2015 | August 2017 | Allow | 27 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14709845 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING REQUIREMENTS FOR TESTING SOFTWARE | May 2015 | March 2018 | Allow | 34 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14699193 | UNIFIED PROCESSING TEST STRUCTURE | April 2015 | September 2017 | Allow | 29 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14693564 | COLLATING AND INTELLIGENTLY SEQUENCING INSTALLATION DOCUMENTATION | April 2015 | January 2016 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14683789 | REGISTER LIVENESS ANALYSIS FOR SIMD ARCHITECTURES | April 2015 | February 2016 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14539234 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING REQUIREMENTS FOR TESTING SOFTWARE | November 2014 | March 2018 | Allow | 40 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14456631 | SUBSTRATE PROCESSING SYSTEMS, APPARATUS, AND METHODS WITH FACTORY INTERFACE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS | August 2014 | October 2018 | Allow | 51 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14313358 | RELOCATION OF INSTRUCTIONS THAT USE RELATIVE ADDRESSING | June 2014 | February 2016 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14300280 | System and Method for Providing Customized Resources on a Handheld Electronic Device | June 2014 | July 2016 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14353468 | SYSTEM FOR SHOWING IMAGE HAVING GAME FUNCTION | April 2014 | May 2017 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14225914 | TERMINAL, TERMINAL SYSTEM, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM FOR UPDATING A TERMINAL USING MULTIPLE MANAGEMENT DEVICES | March 2014 | May 2016 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13955017 | SYSTEM AND/OR METHOD FOR COMPUTING INTERPROCEDURAL DOMINATORS | July 2013 | June 2015 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13954519 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INCREMENTAL COMPILATION AT RUNTIME USING RELAXED GUARDS | July 2013 | August 2015 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13709721 | DISTRIBUTED MODEL COMPILATION | December 2012 | July 2015 | Allow | 31 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13352721 | PROVIDING PERFORMANCE TUNED VERSIONS OF COMPILED CODE TO A CPU IN A SYSTEM OF HETEROGENEOUS CORES | January 2012 | June 2015 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13329295 | DETERMINING OPTIMAL UPDATE FREQUENCY FOR SOFTWARE APPLICATION UPDATES | December 2011 | March 2019 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13074723 | AUTOMATED SELECTION OF QUALITY CONTROL TESTS TO RUN ON A SOFTWARE APPLICATION | March 2011 | September 2015 | Allow | 54 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12030143 | METHOD, APPARATUS AND SOFTWARE FOR MANAGING THE GENERATION OF PROCESS EVENTS BY A SOFTWARE PROCESS | February 2008 | February 2017 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11867157 | TEST PATTERN GENERATION APPARATUS AND TEST PATTERN GENERATION METHOD | October 2007 | December 2011 | Abandon | 50 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11816530 | System and Method for Revising an Electronic Draft | August 2007 | March 2012 | Abandon | 55 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11838247 | Code Obfuscation By Reference Linking | August 2007 | August 2011 | Abandon | 48 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11888970 | LEGACY APPLICATION DECOMMISSIONING FRAMEWORK | August 2007 | October 2011 | Allow | 50 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11711860 | System and method for implementing mandatory access control in a computer, and applications thereof | February 2007 | October 2011 | Abandon | 56 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11678162 | Template-Based BIOS Component Creation | February 2007 | July 2016 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11709268 | OPERATING STATUS MONITORING PROGRAM, METHOD AND DEVICE | February 2007 | November 2011 | Allow | 56 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11626357 | SIMPLIFYING ROLLBACK TO PRIOR VERSIONS OF PATCHES USED TO FIX ERRORS IN PRE-INSTALLED SOFTWARE | January 2007 | September 2011 | Allow | 56 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11615347 | System, Method, Apparatus and Computer Program Product for Providing Memory Footprint Reduction | December 2006 | February 2016 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11615569 | METHOD AND APPARATUS TO FACILITATE LOGIC CONTROL AND INTERFACE COMMUNICATION | December 2006 | May 2011 | Abandon | 52 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11555851 | Method, Computer Program Product, And System For Automatic Software Provisioning Based On Learning History And Competency Level | November 2006 | October 2011 | Abandon | 59 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11556057 | C/C++ LANGUAGE EXTENSIONS FOR GENERAL-PURPOSE GRAPHICS PROCESSING UNIT | November 2006 | October 2011 | Abandon | 59 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11584048 | Compiling device, list vector area assignment optimization method, and computer-readable recording medium having compiler program recorded thereon | October 2006 | April 2011 | Abandon | 54 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11526361 | Method and system for customization of software application | September 2006 | July 2011 | Abandon | 58 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11467540 | Code Aggregation and Sharing | August 2006 | March 2011 | Abandon | 55 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11462052 | SEARCHING METHOD AND COMPUTER SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING A FUNCTION ASSOCIATED WITH A MEMORY BLOCK | August 2006 | February 2011 | Abandon | 55 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11460541 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CREATING CULTURE-SENSITIVE CONTROLS FOR GLOBAL APPLICATIONS | July 2006 | January 2011 | Abandon | 53 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11494142 | Localized, incremental single static assignment update | July 2006 | October 2011 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11478668 | BUSINESS PROCESS MODEL DEBUGGER | June 2006 | October 2010 | Allow | 52 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11382551 | GENERATING DOCUMENTATION FROM TASK EXECUTION | May 2006 | July 2011 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11390659 | Accelerating the testing and validation of new firmware components | March 2006 | April 2011 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11372956 | Method and apparatus for testing software | March 2006 | October 2010 | Abandon | 55 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11370859 | Program translation method and program translation apparatus | March 2006 | January 2011 | Abandon | 58 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11368537 | Methods and systems for development of software for complex systems | March 2006 | December 2010 | Abandon | 58 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11348746 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MOVING AREA OPERATOR DEFINITION INSTRUCTION STATEMENTS WITHIN CONTROL FLOW STRUCTURES | February 2006 | May 2010 | Allow | 51 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11333064 | Methods and apparatus for patching software in accordance with instituted patching policies | January 2006 | July 2010 | Abandon | 54 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11331546 | Method and apparatus for translating an application programming interface (API) call | January 2006 | December 2010 | Abandon | 59 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11331548 | Method and an apparatus for translating programming language code | January 2006 | November 2010 | Abandon | 58 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11321857 | VIRTUAL RAS REPOSITORY | December 2005 | December 2011 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11321542 | USE OF RAS PROFILE TO INTEGRATE AN APPLICATION INTO A TEMPLATABLE SOLUTION | December 2005 | August 2011 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11321460 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETECTING IN-LINE SYNCHRONIZATION PRIMITIVES IN BINARY APPLICATIONS | December 2005 | October 2011 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11314145 | Suspending memory analyzing of a program performed by a runtime memory analysis system | December 2005 | August 2010 | Abandon | 56 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11314662 | Architecture to simplify development of out of box experience (OOBE) modules | December 2005 | February 2010 | Abandon | 50 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11313363 | Method for offering and refreshing digital content on fixed image platforms | December 2005 | February 2010 | Abandon | 50 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11303753 | Software customization framework | December 2005 | February 2010 | Abandon | 50 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11304143 | PROFILE-DRIVEN LOCK HANDLING | December 2005 | March 2011 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11303675 | Partitioning of non-volatile memories for vectorization | December 2005 | February 2011 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11291542 | USER/PROCESS RUNTIME SYSTEM TRACE | December 2005 | March 2011 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11292052 | LOCALIZABLE OBJECT PATTERN | December 2005 | December 2010 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner AGUILERA, TODD.
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, 16.7% 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 AGUILERA, TODD works in Art Unit 2192 and has examined 70 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 60.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 53 months.
Examiner AGUILERA, TODD's allowance rate of 60.0% places them in the 20% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by AGUILERA, TODD receive 2.53 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 74% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by AGUILERA, TODD is 53 months. This places the examiner in the 3% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +73.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by AGUILERA, TODD. This interview benefit is in the 99% 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.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 24.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 34% 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 16.0% 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.
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 7% 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 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 16% 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, 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's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 4.3% of allowed cases (in the 84% 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 4.8% of allowed cases (in the 80% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.
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.