Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18631596 | COMMUNICATION APPARATUS AND COMMUNICATION METHOD | April 2024 | February 2025 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18596504 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR TIMING SYNCHRONIZATION IN A CELLULAR NETWORK | March 2024 | April 2025 | Allow | 13 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18416882 | SOURCE-PROVISIONED SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE | January 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 17 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18003604 | FRONTHAUL NETWORK UNIT AND METHOD THEREIN FOR SYNCHRONIZATION OVER A FRONTHAUL NETWORK | December 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 29 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17985534 | RESOURCE CONFIGURATION METHOD AND APPARATUS, TERMINAL DEVICE AND NETWORK DEVICE | November 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17946040 | METHOD FOR PERFORMING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE SUPPORTING THE SAME | September 2022 | April 2025 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17905336 | METHOD FOR HANDLING HIGH-PRIORITY UPLINK TRANSMISSIONS AND USER EQUIPMENT | August 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17881492 | MULTIMEDIA DATA PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | August 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17869554 | REFERENCE SIGNALING DESIGN AND CONFIGURATION | July 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17790895 | REPORTING OCCURRENCE OF AN EVENT IN A MOBILE COMMUNICATION NETWORK | July 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17831042 | PRIORITY BASED CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN FULL-DUPLEX OPERATIONS | June 2022 | April 2025 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17747281 | Method, Apparatus, and System for Implementing Congestion Control | May 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17733931 | METHOD FOR PROCESSING SCELL DORMANCY INDICATION, TERMINAL, AND NETWORK DEVICE | April 2022 | April 2025 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17674377 | CHANNEL STATE INFORMATION REPORTING FOR HALF-DUPLEX AND FULL-DUPLEX MODES | February 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17576928 | INFORMATION INDICATION AND DETERMINATION METHODS AND APPARATUSES | January 2022 | July 2024 | Allow | 30 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 17597617 | FREQUENCY DOMAIN BASIS RESTRICTION FOR CSI REPORTING ENHANCEMENT | January 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15718426 | COMBINED CELLULAR BASE STATION AND ROADSIDE UNIT SYSTEM HAVING A COMMON BACKHAUL AND RELATED METHODS | September 2017 | September 2019 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13257772 | CIRCUIT, CONTROL SYSTEM, CONTROL METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM FOR RECORDING PROGRAM | September 2011 | December 2014 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12962926 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROPORTIONAL RESOURCE ALLOCATION FOR MULTI-RATE RANDOM ACCESS | December 2010 | September 2014 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner CHU, WUTCHUNG works in Art Unit 2418 and has examined 16 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 93.8%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.
Examiner CHU, WUTCHUNG's allowance rate of 93.8% places them in the 82% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by CHU, WUTCHUNG receive 1.75 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 52% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by CHU, WUTCHUNG is 34 months. This places the examiner in the 23% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +8.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CHU, WUTCHUNG. This interview benefit is in the 41% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 33.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 65% 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 57.1% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 79% 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.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 12% 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.