Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18645987 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING APPLICATION AND SUBSCRIPTION AWARE USER PLANE FUNCTION SELECTION, STEERING, AND ANCHORING | April 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 13 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18643006 | ANOMALY DETECTION MECHANISM EVALUATIONS | April 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18641850 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING A CHAT RESPONSE ON SALES DEALS USING A LARGE LANGUAGE MODEL | April 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18598198 | IMAGE FEATURE MATCHING WITH FORMAL PRIVACY GUARANTEES | March 2024 | July 2025 | Allow | 16 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18686224 | CONTINUOUS VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM | February 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18427936 | SYSTEM/SUBSYSTEM ANOMALY DETECTION VIA SIMULATING END-TO-END DATA PROPAGATION | January 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18181351 | CAMERA CALIBRATION USING A VEHICLE COMPONENT LOCATION IN FIELD OF VIEW | March 2023 | May 2025 | Abandon | 26 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17721859 | METHODS AND DEVICES FOR IMPROVING STORAGE AND TRANSMISSION OF UNCOMPRESSED DATA WHILE USING A STANDARD FORMAT | April 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 39 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17412929 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR STORING A MEDIA ASSET RESCHEDULED FOR TRANSMISSION FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE | August 2021 | July 2025 | Allow | 47 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17444292 | REMOTE APPLICATION CONTROLLER | August 2021 | March 2026 | Allow | 55 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17112550 | ESTIMATING OTT PLAYER QoE METRICS FROM CDN LOGS USING AI AND MACHINE LEARNING | December 2020 | July 2025 | Allow | 55 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R.
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, 0.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is less effective here than in most other areas.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R works in Art Unit 2424 and has examined 3 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 55 months.
Examiner BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 95% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R receive 5.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 99% 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 BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R is 55 months. This places the examiner in the 2% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 14% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show lower effectiveness with this examiner compared to others. Consider whether a continuation application might be more strategic, especially if you need to add new matter or significantly broaden claims.
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 98% 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 90% 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.
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.