Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19096698 | METHODS FOR DYNAMICALLY GENERATING GENERATIVE OPERATING SYSTEMS BASED ON HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ENVIRONMENT FEATURE | March 2025 | October 2025 | Allow | 7 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17813819 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING RUNTIME PREDICTIONS IN DISTRIBUTED COMPUTER ARCHITECTURES | July 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17807304 | CHECKPOINT SYSTEM FOR ACCELERATORS/QUANTUM COMPUTING FUNCTIONS-AS-A-SERVICE | June 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17656699 | VIRTUAL MACHINE MEMORY MANAGEMENT METHOD AND DEVICE | March 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17685277 | MEMORY ALLOCATION FOR PROCESSING SEQUENTIAL DATA | March 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 48 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17586818 | RELIABILITY-AWARE RESOURCE ALLOCATION METHOD AND APPARATUS IN DISAGGREGATED DATA CENTERS | January 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17649162 | CONTROLLING JOB PACKING PROCESSING UNIT CORES FOR GPU SHARING | January 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 50 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17550766 | PAGE TRANSITION DETECTION USING SCREEN OPERATION HISTORY | December 2021 | November 2025 | Allow | 47 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner LI, HARRISON works in Art Unit 2195 and has examined 1 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 100.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 47 months.
Examiner LI, HARRISON's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 95% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by LI, HARRISON receive 2.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 51% 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 LI, HARRISON is 47 months. This places the examiner in the 9% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 97% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.
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.
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.