Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17139856 | SCALABLE PHYSICAL LOOP DETECTION IN NON-NATIVE VIRTUAL LOCAL AREA NETWORKS (VLANS) | December 2020 | August 2023 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16981597 | MULTICAST DELIVERY DESTINATION DESIGNATION METHOD, TRANSMITTING STATION, AND RECEIVING STATION | September 2020 | March 2024 | Allow | 42 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16948273 | CONFIGURABLE TRANSMISSION TIMELINE FOR PHYSICAL SIDELINK FEEDBACK CHANNEL | September 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 36 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16803869 | DYNAMIC PHYSICAL DOWNLINK CONTROL CHANNEL (PDCCH) MONITORING MODE SWITCHING, CONFIGURATION, AND CONTROL | February 2020 | January 2024 | Allow | 46 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16666915 | APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING VEHICLE NETWORK MANAGEMENT, SYSTEM INCLUDING SAME AND METHOD THEREOF | October 2019 | April 2024 | Abandon | 53 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16481825 | MOBILITY AND LOAD BALANCING TARGET SELECTION FOR UNLICENSED CARRIERS | July 2019 | November 2023 | Allow | 52 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16348760 | UPLINK DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD, TERMINAL DEVICE, AND NETWORK DEVICE | May 2019 | June 2021 | Allow | 25 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16347571 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR EXECUTING MULTI-BEAM-BASED SCHEDULING REQUEST IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION | May 2019 | April 2024 | Abandon | 59 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12346251 | DIFFERENTIATING BLADE DESTINATION AND TRAFFIC TYPES IN A MULTI-ROOT PCIE ENVIRONMENT | December 2008 | September 2011 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11817323 | ROUTER, NETWORK COMPRISING A ROUTER, METHOD FOR ROUTING DATA IN A NETWORK | October 2008 | April 2011 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12202233 | MANAGING HIERARCHICALLY ORGANIZED SUBSCRIBER PROFILES | August 2008 | December 2010 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12202224 | MANAGING HIERARCHICALLY ORGANIZED SUBSCRIBER PROFILES | August 2008 | October 2010 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12202232 | MANAGING HIERARCHICALLY ORGANIZED SUBSCRIBER PROFILES | August 2008 | November 2010 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12089178 | NETWORK COMMUNICATION APPARATUS, NETWORK COMMUNICATION METHOD, AND ADDRESS MANAGEMENT APPARATUS | April 2008 | June 2011 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12073118 | VEHICLE NETWORK SYSTEM | February 2008 | May 2012 | Allow | 51 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12024514 | PERFORMING DYNAMIC REQUEST ROUTING BASED ON BROADCAST QUEUE DEPTHS | February 2008 | August 2011 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11915256 | RELAY APPARATUS AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | November 2007 | January 2011 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11716883 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETECTING VPN COMMUNICATION | March 2007 | September 2011 | Allow | 54 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11574389 | PUSH-TYPE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACCOMPANIED BY A TELEPHONE CALL | February 2007 | December 2011 | Allow | 58 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11586661 | VOICE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM OVER IP PHONE SYSTEM | October 2006 | March 2011 | Allow | 53 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11409621 | Electronic device | April 2006 | June 2009 | Abandon | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11408727 | SYSTEM AND A METHOD FOR CONSTRUCTING AND DECONSTRUCTING DATA PACKETS | April 2006 | May 2011 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11409149 | Apparatus and method for bandwidth requesting in wireless communication system | April 2006 | September 2009 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11407944 | Gateway system | April 2006 | September 2009 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10991970 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MANAGING SUBSCRIBER PROFILES | November 2004 | August 2010 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 10890581 | AUDIO-TO-VIDEO SYNCHRONIZATION SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PACKET-BASED NETWORK VIDEO CONFERENCING | July 2004 | September 2009 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner DIVECHA, NISHANT B.
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.
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, 57.1% 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.
✓ 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 DIVECHA, NISHANT B works in Art Unit 2419 and has examined 26 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 80.8%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.
Examiner DIVECHA, NISHANT B's allowance rate of 80.8% places them in the 53% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by DIVECHA, NISHANT B receive 3.04 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 84% 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 DIVECHA, NISHANT B 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 +7.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by DIVECHA, NISHANT B. This interview benefit is in the 37% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 24.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 37% 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 9.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 10% 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, 100.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 72% 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 85.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 79% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 33.3% 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, 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 26.9% of allowed cases (in the 99% 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.