USPTO Examiner JIANG CHARLES C - Art Unit 2412

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
16716209APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR COMMUNICATIONSDecember 2019April 2023Abandon4020YesNo
16201445DETECTION AND REPORTING OF KEEPALIVE MESSAGES FOR OPTIMIZATION OF KEEPALIVE TRAFFIC IN A MOBILE NETWORKNovember 2018May 2019Abandon600NoNo
15914497METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR COMMUNICATING BETWEEN PRIVATE MESH NETWORK AND PUBLIC NETWORKMarch 2018March 2019Allow1200NoNo
15672978WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, COMMUNICATIONS APPARATUS, TERMINAL, AND BASE STATIONAugust 2017February 2022Abandon5460NoNo
15547581METHOD AND DEVICE FOR REPORTING CSI BY UE AND TRIGGERING UE TO REPORT CSIJuly 2017November 2019Abandon2810NoNo
15543905WIFI DEVICE, AND OPERATING METHOD AND DEVICE OF WIFI CHIPS THEREINJuly 2017November 2019Abandon2820NoNo
15637343COMMUNICATION METHOD AND APPARATUSJune 2017March 2019Allow2010NoNo
15588009VALIDATING ROUTING DECISIONSMay 2017July 2019Abandon2611NoNo
15123682Method, Device and System for Detecting Random Access Signal in Interference EnvironmentSeptember 2016November 2019Abandon3830NoNo
15182242DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR SYNCHRONIZATION OF BROADBAND WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMSJune 2016January 2020Abandon4330NoYes
15058545PROVISIONING A DEVICE IN A NETWORKMarch 2016December 2022Allow6080YesNo
14735088LOCATION ID BASED CELL SELECTION METHOD FOR CIRCUIT SWITCHED FALLBACK CALLSJune 2015October 2017Abandon2810NoNo
14618684PACKET FORWARDING METHOD AND NETWORK ACCESS DEVICEFebruary 2015July 2017Abandon2910NoNo
13877834METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR HANDLING IN-DEVICE CO-EXISTENCE INTERFERENCE IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENTApril 2013March 2016Allow3550YesYes
13767329DIGITAL SURVEILLANCEFebruary 2013September 2013Allow700NoNo
13717065BANDWIDTH SELECTION METHODDecember 2012March 2015Abandon2610NoNo
13617831SUPPORT FOR MULTI-HOMING PROTOCOLSSeptember 2012August 2013Allow1100NoNo
13614334SEQUENCE ALLOCATING METHOD AND SEQUENCE ALLOCATING APPARATUSSeptember 2012February 2014Allow1720NoYes
13585407DYNAMIC CALL ANCHORINGAugust 2012August 2013Allow1220YesNo
13526548Wireless Network System, Method of Controlling the System, and Wireless Network Relay DeviceJune 2012September 2014Abandon2710NoNo
13526644METHODS TO ENHANCE COEXISTENCE WITH LOW ENERGY WIRELESS NETWORKSJune 2012September 2014Abandon2710NoNo
13526658CONNECTION SETUP FOR LOW ENERGY WIRELESS NETWORKS BASED ON MASTER DEVICE PACKET THAT INCLUDES TIMING INFORMATIONJune 2012August 2014Abandon2610NoNo
13526649CONNECTION SETUP FOR LOW ENERGY WIRELESS NETWORKS BASED ON SCAN WINDOW AND SCAN INTERVAL ESTIMATIONJune 2012July 2014Abandon2510NoNo
13501298APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR TRANSFERRING A PACKETApril 2012March 2014Abandon2310NoNo
13320129BASE STATION APPARATUS, COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, MAPPING CONTROL METHOD AND PROGRAM STORAGE MEDIUMNovember 2011March 2014Abandon2810NoNo
13249723APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROTECTION SWITCHING FOR MESH TOPOLOGYSeptember 2011September 2013Allow2410NoNo
13191041METHOD AND APPARATUS OF ACCESSING CHANNEL IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMJuly 2011September 2013Allow2610NoNo
13080900POLICING VIRTUAL CONNECTIONSApril 2011May 2013Allow2610NoNo
13080446CHECK OPERATION DISPERSED STORAGE NETWORK FRAMEApril 2011September 2013Allow3020NoNo
13080200CHECKED WRITE OPERATION DISPERSED STORAGE NETWORK FRAMEApril 2011September 2013Allow2920NoNo
13080490INTERMEDIATE WRITE OPERATION DISPERSED STORAGE NETWORK FRAMEApril 2011October 2013Allow3020NoNo
13080286CONCLUSIVE WRITE OPERATION DISPERSED STORAGE NETWORK FRAMEApril 2011September 2013Allow3020NoNo
13063283METHOD FOR IMPLEMENTING PERMANENT RING NETWORK PROTECTION IN AN MESH NETWORKMarch 2011August 2013Allow2910NoNo
13073851METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR RELAYING PEER DISCOVERY INFORMATION IN WWANMarch 2011October 2013Allow3020NoNo
13073948DISPERSED STORAGE NETWORK FRAME PROTOCOL HEADERMarch 2011September 2013Allow3020NoNo
13004082METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING DIAMETER SESSION FOR PACKET FLOW BASED CHARGINGJanuary 2011September 2013Allow3210NoNo
13000497METHOD FOR MANAGING A MOBILE NETWORKDecember 2010September 2013Allow3320NoNo
13000237NAVIGATION TERMINAL, METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR UPDATING MAP VIA FUSION OF BROADCASTING AND TELECOMMUNICATIONSDecember 2010December 2013Abandon3620NoNo
12938210METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR OPTIMIZING A PERFORMANCE INDICATOR LOG MASKNovember 2010July 2013Allow3310NoNo
12990700DEVICE AND METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING SYNCHRONIZATION CHANNELNovember 2010September 2013Allow3520NoNo
12990658TECHNIQUES FOR IMPROVING THE SPATIAL REUSE OF WIRELESS NETWORKSNovember 2010September 2013Allow3420NoNo
12990696METHOD OF TRANSMITING CONTROL INFORMATION AND TERMINAL THEREOFNovember 2010September 2013Allow3530NoNo
12990736METHOD OF SIGNALING CONTROL INFORMATION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WITH MULTIPLE FREQUENCY BLOCKSNovember 2010September 2013Allow3520NoNo
12922335ALARM AND EVENT COORDINATION BETWEEN TELECOM NODESSeptember 2010September 2013Allow3620YesNo
12922329BROADCAST SYSTEM, BROADCAST MANAGEMENT DEVICE, BROADCAST METHOD, AND TERMINALSeptember 2010July 2013Allow3420NoNo
12922379SYSTEM FOR MEASURING TRANSMISSION BANDWIDTH FOR MEDIA STREAMING AND METHOD FOR SAMESeptember 2010September 2013Allow3620YesNo
12922242DATA COMMUNICATIONSSeptember 2010July 2013Allow3420YesNo
12829755RANGING BY MOBILE STATION IN LEGACY SUPPORT MODEJuly 2010August 2013Allow3820NoNo
12681358SUPPORT FOR MULTI-HOMING PROTOCOLSApril 2010November 2012Allow3210YesNo
12679323METHOD OF TRANSMITTING FEEDBACK MESSAGE IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMMarch 2010September 2013Allow4230NoNo
12679253METHOD OF MAPPING PHYSICAL RESOURCE TO LOGICAL RESOURCE IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMMarch 2010August 2013Allow4140NoNo
12600900COMMUNICATION SYSTEMNovember 2009June 2013Allow4330YesNo
12107467METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR UTILIZING A RESERVED CHANNEL TO MANAGE ENERGY EFFICIENT NETWORK PROTOCOLSApril 2008September 2013Allow6020YesNo
12106846ENHANCED BEACON SIGNALING METHOD AND APPARATUSApril 2008March 2012Allow4620NoNo
12088676BROADCAST RECEIVING APPARATUS AND DATA PROCESSING METHODMarch 2008August 2013Allow6050NoNo
12079245SCALABLE OFDM AND OFDMA BANDWIDTH ALLOCATION IN COMMUNICATION SYSTEMSMarch 2008October 2013Allow6030YesNo
11355700RADIO LINK PROTOCOLS FOR ENHANCING EFFICIENCY OF MULTI-LINK COMMUNICATION SYSTEMSFebruary 2006June 2012Allow60120NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner JIANG, CHARLES C.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
0
(0.0%)
Examiner Reversed
1
(100.0%)
Reversal Percentile
93.2%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
3
Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(66.7%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(33.3%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
90.9%
Higher than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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, 66.7% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Strategic Recommendations

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 JIANG, CHARLES C - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner JIANG, CHARLES C works in Art Unit 2412 and has examined 57 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 68.4%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 30 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner JIANG, CHARLES C's allowance rate of 68.4% places them in the 31% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by JIANG, CHARLES C receive 2.12 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 53% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by JIANG, CHARLES C is 30 months. This places the examiner in the 59% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +27.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by JIANG, CHARLES C. This interview benefit is in the 74% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 39.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 90% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 40.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 62% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 48% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 50.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 80.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 83% 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 Cooperation and Flexibility

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 17% percentile). This examiner rarely issues Quayle actions compared to other examiners. Allowances typically come directly without a separate action for formal matters.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • RCEs are effective: This examiner has a high allowance rate after RCE compared to others. If you receive a final rejection and have substantive amendments or arguments, an RCE is likely to be successful.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.