Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17044134 | METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING BEAM FAILURE OF A SECONDARY CELL | September 2020 | April 2023 | Abandon | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16899506 | CONFIGURED GRANT UPLINK CONTROL INFORMATION (UCI) MULTIPLEXING FOR NEW RADIO-UNLICENSED (NR-U) | June 2020 | May 2023 | Abandon | 36 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16892178 | PRIORITY-BASED FLOW CONTROL | June 2020 | June 2023 | Abandon | 36 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16883808 | RADIO LINK STATUS DETERMINATION METHOD AND RADIO LINK STATUS DETERMINATION DEVICE | May 2020 | August 2023 | Abandon | 39 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16843208 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR REPORTING CHANNEL STATE INFORMATION IN MOBILE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | April 2020 | January 2025 | Abandon | 58 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16608292 | BASE STATION APPARATUS, TERMINAL APPARATUS, COMMUNICATION METHOD, AND INTEGRATED CIRCUIT | October 2019 | October 2023 | Abandon | 48 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16654676 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LTE-U DETECTION | October 2019 | August 2023 | Abandon | 46 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 16527479 | WIRELESS NODE COMMUNICATION METHOD AND APPARATUS IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | July 2019 | June 2023 | Abandon | 46 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 16477680 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR REPORTING SEMI-PERSISTENT CHANNEL STATE IN MOBILE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | July 2019 | July 2023 | Abandon | 48 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16358982 | GATEWAY SYSTEM FOR HETEROGENEOUS FIELDBUS | March 2019 | May 2023 | Abandon | 49 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16171697 | ENHANCED HIGH EFFICIENCY FRAMES FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS | October 2018 | April 2023 | Abandon | 54 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16088120 | METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR ADJUSTING PRIORITIES AMONG LOGICAL CHANNELS | September 2018 | July 2023 | Abandon | 57 | 6 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 15474778 | SETTING OF SPATIAL REUSE FIELD FOR HE TRIGGER-BASED PPDU | March 2017 | May 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15317423 | METHOD IN USER EQUIPMENT FOR SELECTING ACCESS NODE IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENT | December 2016 | December 2018 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15372780 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF JITTER BUFFER MANAGEMENT | December 2016 | October 2018 | Abandon | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15108137 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING GROUP COMMUNICATION SERVICE ENABLER (GCSE) SERVICE IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | June 2016 | December 2018 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15108224 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING SIGNALS IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | June 2016 | February 2019 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15144595 | BASE STATION, COMMUNICATION METHOD, AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | May 2016 | January 2019 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14943095 | TRANSMISSION ROUTE DESIGN METHOD, TRANSMISSION ROUTE DESIGN SYSTEM AND TRANSMISSION ROUTE DESIGN APPARATUS | November 2015 | February 2019 | Abandon | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14942972 | PACKET PROCESSING APPARATUS UTILIZING INGRESS DROP QUEUE MANAGER CIRCUIT TO INSTRUCT BUFFER MANAGER CIRCUIT TO PERFORM CELL RELEASE OF INGRESS PACKET AND ASSOCIATED PACKET PROCESSING METHOD | November 2015 | January 2019 | Abandon | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14921511 | CLOUD SUPPORT FOR DISCOVERY AND DATA TRANSFER FOR MOBILE CLIENT DEVICES | October 2015 | December 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14748218 | Mobile traffic optimization and coordination and user experience enhancement | June 2015 | December 2016 | Abandon | 18 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14709475 | FLOW-INDEXING FOR DATAPATH PACKET PROCESSING | May 2015 | June 2017 | Abandon | 25 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14549170 | EXTENDED BLOCK ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PROTOCOL | November 2014 | January 2019 | Abandon | 50 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 14518168 | DEFAULT DATA PATH FOR NAN AIDED CONNECTIVITY | October 2014 | December 2016 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14496694 | SYSTEMS, METHODS AND DEVICES FOR MULTIPLE SIGNAL CO-EXISTENCE IN MULTIPLE-USE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM | September 2014 | January 2019 | Abandon | 52 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14469349 | BACKWARD COMPATIBLE BANDWIDTH EXTENSION | August 2014 | May 2018 | Abandon | 45 | 10 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 14222680 | Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP) Loop Detection | March 2014 | January 2017 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13806479 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR RECONFIGURING COMPONENT CARRIER IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM THAT OPERATES PLURALITY OF COMPONENT CARRIERS, AND DEVICE AND METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING RRC CONNECTION-RECONFIGURATION MESSAGE THEREFOR | December 2012 | April 2015 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13806598 | WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, RECEPTION APPARATUS, RECEPTION CONTROL METHOD, RECEPTION CONTROL PROGRAM, AND PROCESSOR | December 2012 | April 2015 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13806504 | PRIORITIZED TRANSFER OF DATA TELEGRAMS | December 2012 | September 2015 | Abandon | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13505371 | METHOD FOR MAPPING AND TRANSMITTING DEMODULATION REFERENCE SIGNAL (DM-RS), COMMUNICATION TERMINAL DEVICE USING SAME, APPARATUS FOR TRANSMITTING DM-RS, AND METHOD FOR RECEIVING DM-RS | May 2012 | January 2015 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 13505427 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ASSIGNING LAYERS IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | May 2012 | September 2014 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13115740 | PREDICTION OF ACTIVITY SESSION FOR MOBILE NETWORK USE OPTIMIZATION AND USER EXPERIENCE ENHANCEMENT | May 2011 | November 2016 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12987013 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING DISCONTINUOUS RECEPTION AND/OR DISCONTINUOUS TRANSMISSION FOR A MULTI-CARRIER/MULTI-CELL OPERATION | January 2011 | May 2014 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11343769 | Call admission to a wireless network based on application-specific quality of service information | January 2006 | November 2013 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10717065 | Method and apparatus for scheduling forward data bursts in wireless network | November 2003 | March 2013 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10441582 | Wireless terminals that scan for alternate protocol systems responsive to terminal movement and methods of same | May 2003 | July 2013 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10088123 | COMMUNICATION NETWORK IN PARTICULAR FOR TELEPHONY | March 2002 | August 2006 | Allow | 53 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CHO, UN C.
With a 20.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is below the USPTO average, indicating that appeals face more challenges 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, 18.2% 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 CHO, UN C works in Art Unit 2413 and has examined 39 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 7.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 39 months.
Examiner CHO, UN C's allowance rate of 7.7% places them in the 1% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by CHO, UN C receive 3.26 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 88% 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 CHO, UN C is 39 months. This places the examiner in the 26% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CHO, UN C. This interview benefit is in the 14% 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, 1.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 2% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show lower effectiveness with this examiner compared to others. Consider whether a continuation application might be more strategic, especially if you need to add new matter or significantly broaden claims.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 7.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 9% 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, 50.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 44% 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 44.4% of appeals filed. This is in the 11% 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 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 2.6% of allowed cases (in the 78% 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 17% 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.