Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18694274 | PROPAGATING LOCKING SCRIPTS | March 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18025870 | DISPLAY CONTROL SYSTEM, DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | March 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18146065 | DETECTING MALWARE INFECTION PATH IN A CLOUD COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT UTILIZING A SECURITY GRAPH | December 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18046169 | GENERATING POST-QUANTUM PRE-SHARED KEYS | October 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17917795 | METHOD FOR CONTROLLING NEURAL NETWORK CIRCUIT | October 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 33 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17958775 | SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND CLOCK CONTROL METHOD | October 2022 | November 2025 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17953991 | PARALLEL COMPUTING SCHEME GENERATION FOR NEURAL NETWORKS | September 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 33 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17950918 | NETWORK CONNECTIVITY BASED ON USER IDENTITY | September 2022 | November 2025 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17884000 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR PERFORMING DIFFERENT LOGIN PROCESS ACCORDING TO AUTHENTICATION TYPE AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF | August 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 42 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17862852 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EXECUTION OF INFERENCE MODELS ACROSS MULTIPLE DATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS | July 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 35 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17855366 | MACHINE-LEARNED NEURAL NETWORK ARCHITECTURES FOR INCREMENTAL LIFT PREDICTIONS | June 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 35 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17850563 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSERTING TRANSACTIONS INTO TRANSACTION POOLS | June 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17842482 | DISTRIBUTED LEDGER FOR INSTANTANEOUS CONSENSUS OF A DIGITAL TWIN | June 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17837290 | Application Security Context from Traces and Snapshots | June 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17805365 | Embedded Subscriber Identity Module Non-Fungible Token System | June 2022 | November 2025 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16933953 | USER AUTHENTICATION BASED ON CONFIDENCE LEVELS FOR IDENTITY PREDICTIONS | July 2020 | December 2023 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16795938 | DYNAMIC BIOMETRIC UPDATING | February 2020 | September 2023 | Abandon | 43 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16569043 | INDEX BASED RANSOMWARE CATEGORIZATION | September 2019 | November 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15204234 | LOW FRICTION DEVICE ENROLLMENT | July 2016 | August 2019 | Abandon | 38 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 15141891 | OFFLOADING STORAGE ENCRYPTION OPERATIONS | April 2016 | August 2019 | Abandon | 40 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14975862 | Thin Client Unit apparatus to transport intra-vehicular data on a communication network | December 2015 | June 2018 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14708229 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING EYE SIGNALS WITH SECURE MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS | May 2015 | March 2017 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14683919 | DATA LOSS PREVENTION DURING APP EXECUTION USING E-MAIL ENFORCEMENT ON A MOBILE DEVICE | April 2015 | December 2016 | Abandon | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13217667 | SELECTIVELY RECEIVING MEDIA CONTENT | August 2011 | June 2013 | Abandon | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13183259 | CALCULATING QUANTITATIVE ASSET RISK | July 2011 | April 2014 | Abandon | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12891348 | SELECTIVELY RECEIVING MEDIA CONTENT | September 2010 | July 2013 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12536029 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, METHOD, PROGRAM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM | August 2009 | September 2012 | Abandon | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12314515 | Method for security handling in a wireless access system supporting multicast broadcast services | December 2008 | May 2012 | Abandon | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12331060 | AUTHENTICATION OF CONTROLLED DOSING PROCESSES | December 2008 | September 2012 | Abandon | 45 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12329453 | NON-VOLATILE STORAGE OF ENCRYPTED DATA | December 2008 | July 2012 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12293004 | QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM AND OPTICAL DEVICE | September 2008 | June 2012 | Abandon | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12231435 | Method and system for combating malware with keystroke logging functionality | September 2008 | January 2013 | Abandon | 52 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12130159 | PROTECTION AND SECURITY PROVISIONING USING ON-THE-FLY VIRTUALIZATION | May 2008 | July 2012 | Abandon | 50 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12129992 | Vehicle Diagnostic System Security with Memory Card | May 2008 | January 2016 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12038907 | CONTENT SERVICE PROVIDING METHOD AND AUTHENTICATION METHOD BETWEEN DEVICES USING BROADCAST ENCRYPTION, DISPLAY DEVICE, AND RESOURCE-CONSTRAINED DEVICE | February 2008 | August 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11780490 | METHOD FOR WRITING DATA INTO STORAGE ON CHIP AND SYSTEM THEREOF | July 2007 | November 2010 | Abandon | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11796004 | Authentication method and apparatus between an internet site and on-line customers using customer-specific streamed audio or video signals | April 2007 | November 2010 | Abandon | 43 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11558197 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR TRACKING USAGE OF ON-LINE CONTENT | November 2006 | April 2010 | Abandon | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11519971 | Method and system for secure data collection and distribution | September 2006 | May 2014 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11517554 | Information processing method and information processing apparatus | September 2006 | December 2010 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11479670 | Multimedia distribution system | June 2006 | August 2010 | Abandon | 50 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11368114 | Methods and systems for evaluating and generating anomaly detectors | March 2006 | December 2010 | Abandon | 57 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11270098 | Data sharing and networking system for integrated remote tool access, data collection and control | November 2005 | January 2011 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 09931550 | System management interrupt generation upon completion of cryptographic operation | August 2001 | January 2013 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ZAND, KAMBIZ.
With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.
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, 16.7% 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.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner ZAND, KAMBIZ works in Art Unit 2434 and has examined 29 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 6.9%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 43 months.
Examiner ZAND, KAMBIZ's allowance rate of 6.9% places them in the 1% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by ZAND, KAMBIZ receive 1.90 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 46% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by ZAND, KAMBIZ is 43 months. This places the examiner in the 16% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +50.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ZAND, KAMBIZ. This interview benefit is in the 93% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.
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 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.
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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 20.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 3% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 2% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.
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.