Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17137156 | SWITCHED MULTICAST VIDEO STREAMING | December 2020 | July 2023 | Allow | 30 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17125221 | PARAMETER CONFIGURATION METHOD AND APPARATUS | December 2020 | June 2025 | Allow | 54 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17073990 | Systems and Methods for Server Failover and Load Balancing | October 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 45 | 6 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 17073161 | MANAGED DISTRIBUTION OF DATA STREAM CONTENTS | October 2020 | June 2023 | Allow | 32 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16990672 | COMMUNICATION METHOD, COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM STORAGE MEDIUM | August 2020 | February 2024 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16945576 | VIDEO CLIENT MANAGEMENT OF VIDEO SERVICE FEATURE FLAGS | July 2020 | November 2023 | Allow | 39 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16933205 | EPHEMERAL MESSAGE COLLECTION UI INDICIA | July 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 48 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16933366 | AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT OF EPHEMERAL MESSAGE COLLECTIONS | July 2020 | May 2024 | Allow | 46 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16915285 | NETWORK TRAFFIC MONITORING BASED ON CONTENT DATA | June 2020 | August 2023 | Allow | 37 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16871429 | SYSTEM AND METHOD TO DOWNLOAD FILE FROM COMMON RECIPIENT DEVICES IN PROXIMITY | May 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 40 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16580184 | MULTI-BAND RATE CONTROL | September 2019 | April 2023 | Allow | 43 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16563445 | CUSTOMIZED DIGITAL AVATAR ACCESSORIES | September 2019 | August 2023 | Allow | 47 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16510223 | AUTOMATED GENERATION OF MACHINE LEARNING MODELS FOR NETWORK EVALUATION | July 2019 | April 2024 | Abandon | 57 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16459936 | DEVICE IDENTIFICATION AND POLICY ENFORCEMENT USING POWER OVER ETHERNET (POE) | July 2019 | January 2024 | Allow | 55 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15947350 | AUTOMATED CHRONOLOGICAL DISPLAY OF EPHEMERAL MESSAGE GALLERY | April 2018 | July 2023 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15224312 | GALLERY OF EPHEMERAL MESSAGES | July 2016 | February 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 15155648 | NETWORK-AWARE STRUCTURED CONTENT DOWNLOADS | May 2016 | April 2019 | Allow | 35 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15044437 | NETWORK RESOURCE MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD | February 2016 | January 2018 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14982532 | LOAD BALANCING FOR POINTS OF INTEREST | December 2015 | February 2019 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14967731 | MESSAGE TRANSMISSION FOR DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING SYSTEMS | December 2015 | August 2016 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14749912 | DATA PREFETCHING FOR LARGE DATA SYSTEMS | June 2015 | April 2019 | Allow | 45 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14749085 | INTELLIGENT ROUTE MANAGEMENT FOR DIVERSE ECOSYSTEMS | June 2015 | January 2018 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14258075 | SCRIPT TERMINATION | April 2014 | March 2017 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14258718 | METADATA BASED DATA ALIGNMENT IN DATA STORAGE SYSTEMS | April 2014 | September 2017 | Allow | 41 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14353266 | MANAGEMENT OF BANDWIDTH EFFICIENCY AND FAIRNESS IN CLOUD COMPUTING | April 2014 | March 2017 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14047787 | NETWORK-AWARE STRUCTURED CONTENT DOWNLOADS | October 2013 | March 2016 | Allow | 29 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14012454 | DATA STORAGE METHOD AND SYSTEM OF PORTABLE TERMINAL | August 2013 | September 2017 | Allow | 49 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 14012551 | COLLABORATIVE METHOD AND SYSTEM TO BALANCE WORKLOAD DISTRIBUTION | August 2013 | October 2016 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14011983 | INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE AND CONFERENCE SYSTEM | August 2013 | May 2017 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13784722 | WIRELESS INTERNET PRODUCT SYSTEM | March 2013 | January 2016 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13781581 | VIRTUAL MACHINE MIGRATION | February 2013 | September 2015 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13619689 | PEER-TO-PEER REDUNDANT FILE SERVER SYSTEM AND METHODS | September 2012 | April 2017 | Allow | 55 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13418240 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EXCHANGING INFORMATION AMONG EXCHANGE APPLICATIONS | March 2012 | April 2017 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13346973 | TRANSMITTING OF CONFIGURATION ITEMS WITHIN A NETWORK | January 2012 | June 2015 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12983120 | DISSEMINATING COMMANDS FROM A DMS SERVER TO FIELDED DEVICES USING AN EXTENDABLE COMMAND ARCHITECTURE | December 2010 | June 2016 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12908081 | PROCESSING REQUESTS IN A CLOUD COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT | October 2010 | August 2015 | Allow | 57 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12772018 | Remote access of peripheral device connected to serial bus | April 2010 | September 2015 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner NGUYEN, THUONG.
With a 75.0% 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.
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, 40.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.
✓ 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 NGUYEN, THUONG works in Art Unit 2416 and has examined 37 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 94.6%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.
Examiner NGUYEN, THUONG's allowance rate of 94.6% places them in the 83% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by NGUYEN, THUONG receive 4.16 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 97% 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 NGUYEN, THUONG is 42 months. This places the examiner in the 19% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +9.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by NGUYEN, THUONG. This interview benefit is in the 40% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 22.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 33% 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 20.6% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 27% 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, 88.9% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 68% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. If you have strong arguments, a PAC request may result in favorable reconsideration.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 71.4% of appeals filed. This is in the 58% 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 above-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. The mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) provides an opportunity for reconsideration.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 44% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 14% 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.
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.