USPTO Examiner GOODARZI NASSER MOAZZAMI - Art Unit 2426

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17247564SOCIAL NETWORK LIVE EVENTSDecember 2020December 2023Abandon3620YesNo
17085921SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR VIEWING-SESSION CONTINUITYOctober 2020March 2022Allow1610NoNo
17079235CONSUMER ELECTRONIC ENTERTAINMENT AND DISPLAY SYSTEMOctober 2020October 2022Abandon2410NoNo
17070144METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND MEDIA FOR STREAMING VIDEO CONTENT USING ADAPTIVE BUFFERSOctober 2020May 2022Allow1910NoNo
17017207SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETECTING THE REMOVAL OF A CONTROLLING DEVICESeptember 2020November 2023Allow3820NoYes
16966260ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) BASED ENHANCED RESOLUTION CONTENT DELIVERYJuly 2020November 2022Abandon2720NoNo
16921434MEDIA DATA PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUSJuly 2020August 2022Abandon2520NoNo
16913991AUTOPLAY RECOMMENDATIONS AND SEQUENCING IN FULL SCREEN VIDEO MODEJune 2020April 2025Abandon5880YesNo
16599304SPEECH RECOGNITION FOR LOCALIZED CONTENTOctober 2019March 2025Abandon60100YesNo
16472053DISPLAY DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOFJune 2019August 2023Abandon5060YesNo
16410403Broadcast Delivered HLS SystemMay 2019March 2024Allow5930NoYes
16230830OPTIMIZED AD PLACEMENT BASED ON AUTOMATED VIDEO ANALYSIS AND DEEP METADATA EXTRACTIONDecember 2018January 2025Allow6040YesYes
15991679WINDOW DISPLAYING NAVIGABLE PROGRAM INFORMATIONMay 2018March 2024Abandon60100NoYes
15988572DELIVERY OF DIFFERENT SERVICES THROUGH CLIENT DEVICES BY VIDEO AND INTERACTIVE SERVICE PROVIDERMay 2018November 2023Abandon6080YesNo
15941630AUTOMOTED IDENTIFICATION OF PRODUCT OR BRAND-RELATED METADATA CANDIDATES FOR A COMMERCIAL USING TEMPORAL POSITION OF PRODUCT OR BRAND-RELATED TEXT OR OBJECTS, OR THE TEMPORAL POSITION AND AUDIO, IN VIDEO FRAMES OF THE COMMERCIALMarch 2018May 2022Abandon5050YesYes
15676765Assignment of Processing Resource Based on Session DataAugust 2017February 2023Allow6030YesYes
15262753METHOD FOR MANAGING THE RECOVERY OF ADVERTISING CONTENTSeptember 2016June 2019Abandon3310NoNo
15110500METHOD FOR DISPLAYING BIT DEPTH FOR PLAYING VIDEO USING DASHJuly 2016April 2019Abandon3340NoNo
14691299METHOD FOR TRANSCEIVING A BROADCAST SIGNAL AND BROADCAST-RECEIVING APPARATUS USING SAMEApril 2015October 2017Abandon2940YesNo
14675320VIEWING SYSTEM AND METHODMarch 2015June 2024Abandon6040NoYes
13968625Programming User Behavior ReportingAugust 2013December 2015Abandon2810NoNo
13523682Interactive TickerJune 2012March 2015Abandon3310NoNo
13358363VIDEO SERVER AND STANDBY METHODJanuary 2012December 2016Abandon5960NoNo
12651339Method of Sharing Personal Media Using a Digital RecorderDecember 2009May 2018Abandon6080NoNo
12609074Methods, Systems, And Computer Program Products For Providing Content Synchronization Or Control Among One Or More DevicesOctober 2009July 2018Abandon6080YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner GOODARZI, NASSER MOAZZAMI.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
6
Examiner Affirmed
4
(66.7%)
Examiner Reversed
2
(33.3%)
Reversal Percentile
52.2%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 33.3% 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.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
9
Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(22.2%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
7
(77.8%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
30.6%
Lower than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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, 22.2% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable reconsideration.

Strategic Recommendations

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 shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner GOODARZI, NASSER MOAZZAMI - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner GOODARZI, NASSER MOAZZAMI works in Art Unit 2426 and has examined 25 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 24.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 50 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner GOODARZI, NASSER MOAZZAMI's allowance rate of 24.0% places them in the 3% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by GOODARZI, NASSER MOAZZAMI receive 4.20 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 97% 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by GOODARZI, NASSER MOAZZAMI is 50 months. This places the examiner in the 7% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a -6.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by GOODARZI, NASSER MOAZZAMI. This interview benefit is in the 5% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 1% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 7.1% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 8% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 7% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 45.5% of appeals filed. This is in the 12% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 71% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

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 18% percentile). This examiner rarely issues Quayle actions compared to other examiners. Allowances typically come directly without a separate action for formal matters.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.
  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.