Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17118976 | Security Adjustments in Mobile Devices | December 2020 | February 2024 | Allow | 39 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17010321 | REAL-TIME NOTIFICATIONS ON DATA BREACH DETECTED IN A COMPUTERIZED ENVIRONMENT | September 2020 | May 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16930206 | Protecting Devices From Malicious Files Based on N-Gram Processing of Sequential Data | July 2020 | August 2024 | Abandon | 49 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16904045 | BASEBOARD MANAGEMENT CONTROLLER TO PERFORM SECURITY ACTION BASED ON DIGITAL SIGNATURE COMPARISON IN RESPONSE TO TRIGGER | June 2020 | February 2024 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16836792 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING AND REMEDYING THEFT OF DATA | March 2020 | March 2024 | Allow | 47 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16386412 | ANTI-VIRUS DEVICE FOR INDUSTRIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS | April 2019 | April 2024 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner EDWARDS, LINGLAN E.
With a 50.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is above the USPTO average, indicating that appeals have better success 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, 50.0% 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.
✓ 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 EDWARDS, LINGLAN E works in Art Unit 2419 and has examined 6 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 66.7%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 47 months.
Examiner EDWARDS, LINGLAN E's allowance rate of 66.7% places them in the 29% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by EDWARDS, LINGLAN E receive 3.50 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 92% 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 EDWARDS, LINGLAN E is 47 months. This places the examiner in the 11% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by EDWARDS, LINGLAN E. 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, 21.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 28% 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 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 1% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 33.3% of appeals filed. This is in the 5% percentile among all examiners. 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.
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.