Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18758418 | AUTOMATED SOFTWARE CONTAINER REHYDRATION AND DEPLOYMENT | June 2024 | August 2024 | Allow | 2 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18724351 | CODE UPDATING METHOD AND APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND NON-VOLATILE COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | June 2024 | January 2025 | Allow | 7 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18587278 | TEST CASE REDUCTION FOR CODE REGRESSION TESTING | February 2024 | March 2025 | Allow | 13 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18433235 | CONFIGURABLE DEPLOYMENT OF DATA SCIENCE ENVIRONMENTS | February 2024 | October 2024 | Allow | 8 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18412656 | ON-DEMAND WEB-SERVER EXECUTION INSTANCE FOR WEBSITE HOSTING WITH CUSTOM BACK-END FUNCTIONALITY | January 2024 | February 2025 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18517485 | ENABLING PASS-THROUGH AUTHENTICATION IN A MULTI-COMPONENT APPLICATION | November 2023 | September 2024 | Allow | 10 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18470723 | DISTRIBUTED AUTONOMOUS PATCHING SYSTEM | September 2023 | September 2024 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18236002 | CLIENT CUSTOMIZED MULTIFUNCTION ROBOT | August 2023 | December 2024 | Allow | 16 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18272325 | UPDATE SOFTWARE REPLICA IN A DISTRIBUTED SYSTEM | July 2023 | May 2025 | Allow | 22 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18348888 | System and method for upgrading a technology stack in a computing infrastructure | July 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18323655 | SERVER, SOFTWARE UPDATE SYSTEM, SOFTWARE UPDATE METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUM | May 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18300980 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR DIGITAL PLATFORMS TWINS GENERATION | April 2023 | December 2024 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18134091 | Natural Language Processing (NLP) Enabled Continuous Integration and Continuous Delivery (CICD) Deployment | April 2023 | November 2024 | Allow | 19 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18248637 | OFFLOAD SERVER, OFFLOAD CONTROL METHOD, AND OFFLOAD PROGRAM | April 2023 | April 2025 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18180229 | PROACTIVELY IDENTIFYING ERRORS IN TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION CODE | March 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18180662 | DEPLOYMENT ORCHESTRATOR IN A CLOUD BASED SERVICE FOR CUSTOMER ENTERPRISES | March 2023 | January 2025 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18116583 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF | March 2023 | February 2025 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18115914 | METHOD, DEVICE, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR TESTING | March 2023 | February 2025 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18176307 | PROGRESSIVE DELIVERY OF CLUSTER INFRASTRUCTURE UPDATES | February 2023 | January 2025 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18173916 | METHOD AND SYSTEM TO IMPROVE THE TURNAROUND TIME FOR PROVIDING UPGRADES | February 2023 | August 2024 | Allow | 18 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18159845 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING TEST SCRIPTS | January 2023 | November 2024 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18097974 | TERMINAL CONTROL PROGRAM, TERMINAL APPARATUS, AND REEL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | January 2023 | January 2025 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18151506 | DETERMINING ORIGINS OF MEMORY LEAKS IN SOURCE CODE | January 2023 | February 2025 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18149064 | QUANTIFYING THE IMPACT OF SOFTWARE CODE REUSE | December 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18068126 | ACCELERATING SOFTWARE CHANGE REQUESTS IN DEPLOYMENT PIPELINES | December 2022 | July 2024 | Allow | 19 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17989011 | UPGRADABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE, SERVER FOR UPGRDADING ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND METHOD FOR UPGRADING ELECTRONIC DEVICE | November 2022 | October 2024 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17997191 | GENERATING EXECUTABLES FOR TARGET OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS | October 2022 | April 2025 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17890752 | TOGGLE PERSIST WITH RUNTIME VIEW OPTIMIZATION | August 2022 | November 2024 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17739707 | LEARNING-AUGMENTED APPLICATION DEPLOYMENT PIPELINE | May 2022 | October 2024 | Allow | 30 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17556806 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | December 2021 | August 2024 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16222665 | DYNAMIC DEPLOYMENT PLACEMENT OF PROCESSING ELEMENTS IN A STREAMING DATA SYSTEM | December 2018 | May 2020 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16186148 | SOFTWARE TEST AUTOMATION SYSTEM AND METHOD | November 2018 | September 2019 | Allow | 11 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16150742 | MIGRATING APPLICATIONS TO UPDATED ENVIRONMENTS | October 2018 | September 2019 | Allow | 11 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16119289 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DECLARATIVE SPECIFICATION, DETECTION, AND EVALUATION OF HAPPENED-BEFORE RELATIONSHIPS | August 2018 | November 2019 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16117109 | GENERATING TARGET CONFIGURATION CONTAINERS PROVIDING COMPUTER ENVIRONMENTS BASED ON A CONFIGURATION CONTAINER | August 2018 | January 2020 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16058182 | COMMUNICATION SYSTEM AND METHOD | August 2018 | June 2019 | Allow | 10 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16053862 | METHODS, COMPUTER READABLE MEDIA, AND SYSTEMS FOR COMPILING CONCISE EXPRESSIVE DESIGN PATTERN SOURCE CODE | August 2018 | August 2019 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16071034 | MODEL BASED UPGRADE CAMPAIGN GENERATION | July 2018 | July 2019 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15893557 | PERIPHERAL DEVICE FIRMWARE UPDATE USING REST OVER IPMI INTERFACE FIRMWARE SHELL UTILITY | February 2018 | April 2019 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15893551 | PERIPHERAL DEVICE FIRMWARE UPDATE USING REST OVER IPMI INTERFACE FIRMWARE UPDATE MODULE | February 2018 | April 2019 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15828088 | VERIFYING SOURCE CODE IN DISPARATE SOURCE CONTROL SYSTEMS | November 2017 | January 2018 | Allow | 1 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15793886 | Systems and methods for executing tasks adaptively | October 2017 | July 2019 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15648151 | VERIFYING SOURCE CODE IN DISPARATE SOURCE CONTROL SYSTEMS | July 2017 | October 2017 | Allow | 3 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15619624 | SMART MIGRATION/REMEDIATION ENGINE | June 2017 | June 2018 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15359161 | CALCULATING A DEPLOYMENT RISK FOR A SOFTWARE DEFINED STORAGE SOLUTION | November 2016 | September 2018 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15349732 | SOFTWARE TEST AUTOMATION SYSTEM AND METHOD | November 2016 | July 2018 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15244942 | CONTAINERIZED UPGRADE IN OPERATING SYSTEM LEVEL VIRTUALIZATION | August 2016 | May 2018 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15243516 | SEMANTICALLY SENSITIVE CODE REGION FINGERPRINT CALCULATION FOR PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES | August 2016 | October 2017 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15206451 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, METHOD, AND PROGRAM | July 2016 | June 2018 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15206850 | REUSABLE DEPLOYMENT PLANS AND DEPENDENCIES THEREOF | July 2016 | January 2018 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15083404 | SCHEDULING IN JOB EXECUTION | March 2016 | June 2016 | Allow | 3 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15011285 | VERIFYING SOURCE CODE IN DISPARATE SOURCE CONTROL SYSTEMS | January 2016 | April 2017 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14859672 | MULTI-DIMENSION SCHEDULING AMONG MULTIPLE CONSUMERS | September 2015 | April 2017 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14853541 | REDUCING VIRTUAL MACHINE PRE-EMPTION IN VIRTUALIZED ENVIRONMENT | September 2015 | April 2016 | Allow | 7 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14820798 | Multiple Tracer Configurations Applied on a Function-by-Function Level | August 2015 | April 2016 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14748365 | SOFTWARE COMPONENT CONFIGURATION IDENTIFICATION | June 2015 | September 2016 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14719109 | MANAGING RESOURCES OF A SHARED POOL OF CONFIGURABLE COMPUTING RESOURCES | May 2015 | September 2016 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14692354 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR HARDWARE-BASED TASK SCHEDULING | April 2015 | September 2017 | Allow | 29 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14690866 | MULTI-DIMENSION SCHEDULING AMONG MULTIPLE CONSUMERS | April 2015 | April 2017 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14682041 | Software Test Automation System and Method | April 2015 | April 2016 | Allow | 12 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14657218 | MANAGING RESOURCES OF A SHARED POOL OF CONFIGURABLE COMPUTING RESOURCES | March 2015 | September 2016 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14427921 | MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND CONTROL PROGRAM FOR MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | March 2015 | February 2016 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14642947 | REDUCING VIRTUAL MACHINE PRE-EMPTION IN VIRTUALIZED ENVIRONMENT | March 2015 | April 2016 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14620558 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MANAGING APPLICATION | February 2015 | August 2017 | Allow | 30 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14528595 | SCHEDULING IN JOB EXECUTION | October 2014 | May 2016 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14468957 | TIME AND SPACE-DETERMINISTIC TASK SCHEDULING APPARATUS AND METHOD USING MULTI-DIMENSIONAL SCHEME | August 2014 | February 2016 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14303982 | COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, COMMUNICATION METHOD, AND COMMUNICATION APPARATUS | June 2014 | August 2015 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14197591 | SCHEDULER AND SCHEDULING METHOD FOR RECONFIGURABLE ARCHITECTURE | March 2014 | December 2015 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13676431 | IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS CAPABLE OF UPDATING CONTROL PROGRAM, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | November 2012 | November 2014 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13673305 | SOFTWARE INSTALLATION | November 2012 | January 2015 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13670677 | COMPILER OPTIMIZATION BASED ON COLLECTIVITY ANALYSIS | November 2012 | May 2014 | Allow | 18 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13616794 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR TESTING CONFORMANCE OF SERVICE CHOREOGRAPHY | September 2012 | June 2015 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13556262 | ESTABLISHING CLOUD DEBUG BREAKPOINTS ASSIGNED TO USERS | July 2012 | April 2014 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13273644 | PROFILER FOR EXECUTING COMPUTER PROGRAM | October 2011 | February 2014 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13249250 | EXECUTION TRACE TRUNCATION | September 2011 | June 2013 | Allow | 21 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13259914 | TRANSLATION DEVICE, TRANSLATION METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM FOR PROGRAM | September 2011 | April 2013 | Allow | 19 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13240253 | Method and System for Remote Software Debugging | September 2011 | July 2014 | Allow | 34 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13225739 | Modeling Task-Site Allocation Networks | September 2011 | August 2013 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13215747 | INTEGRATION OF TRACE SELECTION AND TRACE PROFILING IN DYNAMIC OPTIMIZERS | August 2011 | May 2013 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13173012 | STATIC ANALYSIS BASED ON OBSERVED STRING VALUES DURING EXECUTION OF A COMPUTER-BASED SOFTWARE APPLICATION | June 2011 | September 2013 | Allow | 27 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13026313 | SOFTWARE EQUIVALENCE CHECKING | February 2011 | November 2013 | Allow | 33 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12874387 | PEER-TO-PEER SHARING IN INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT | September 2010 | October 2014 | Allow | 50 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner THATCHER, CLINT A.
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.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner THATCHER, CLINT A works in Art Unit 2197 and has examined 77 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 20 months.
Examiner THATCHER, CLINT A's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 98% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by THATCHER, CLINT A receive 1.13 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 17% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by THATCHER, CLINT A is 20 months. This places the examiner in the 87% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by THATCHER, CLINT A. This interview benefit is in the 10% 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, 39.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 88% 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 27.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 30% 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, 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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 88% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 1% 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 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 14% 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.