Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14869353 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR RELATING TO QUALITY OF SERVICE IN WIRELESS NETWORKS | September 2015 | March 2016 | Allow | 6 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13685223 | PACKET RELAY APPARATUS AND MEASUREMENT METHOD FOR MEASURING DISCARD NUMBER OF DATA PACKETS | November 2012 | June 2015 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13424187 | UNREGISTERED MULTICAST (MC) PACKET FORWARDING TO MULTICAST ROUTER PORTS | March 2012 | June 2014 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13172137 | ACTIVE-AVOIDANCE-BASED ROUTING IN A WIRELESS AD HOC NETWORK | June 2011 | June 2013 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12876548 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR RELATING TO QUALITY OF SERVICE IN WIRELESS NETWORKS | September 2010 | June 2012 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12835168 | TRANSMISSION RATE CONTROL METHOD AND COMMUNICATION DEVICE | July 2010 | September 2012 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12225399 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DATA PACKET ASSEMBLY | April 2010 | June 2012 | Allow | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12519757 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING A ROUTE METRIC | November 2009 | August 2012 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12087327 | SELF-ADAPTING MECHANISM FOR MANAGING DATA STREAMS IN A MULTIPLE ACCESS SHARED NETWORK | February 2009 | March 2012 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12319690 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR LINK LAYER SCHEDULING IN A MULTIPLE ACCESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | January 2009 | January 2012 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12091445 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING SELECTED INTERLACE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT MESSAGES IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS | October 2008 | May 2011 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11957905 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR RELATING TO QUALITY OF SERVICE IN WIRELESS NETWORKS | December 2007 | May 2010 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11947408 | TRANSMISSION DEVICE AND HOME SERVER SYSTEM | November 2007 | March 2010 | Allow | 28 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11278175 | GENERATING A PATH INVENTORY FOR A COMMUNICATION NETWORK | March 2006 | December 2009 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11365446 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COLLECTING SURVEY DATA VIA THE INTERNET | March 2006 | September 2011 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MASUR, PAUL H.
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, 100.0% 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.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner MASUR, PAUL H works in Art Unit 2417 and has examined 15 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 31 months.
Examiner MASUR, PAUL H's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 94% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by MASUR, PAUL H receive 1.80 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 37% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by MASUR, PAUL H is 31 months. This places the examiner in the 54% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MASUR, PAUL H. 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, 33.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 73% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 100.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 99% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 94% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 89% 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 2% 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 13.3% of allowed cases (in the 96% 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 13.3% of allowed cases (in the 92% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.
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.