Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18607384 | Digital Key Authentication Utilizing Device Metadata | March 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 19 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18685831 | DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR PROVISIONING AND UPDATING SECURITY INFORMATION & EVENT MANAGEMENT ARTIFACTS FOR MULTIPLE TENANTS | February 2024 | September 2025 | Allow | 19 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 18377788 | PROCESSOR THAT MITIGATES SIDE CHANNEL ATTACKS BY PREVENTING CACHE MEMORY STATE FROM BEING AFFECTED BY A MISSING LOAD OPERATION BY INHIBITING OR CANCELING A FILL REQUEST OF THE LOAD OPERATION IF AN OLDER LOAD GENERATES A NEED FOR AN ARCHITECTURAL EXCEPTION | October 2023 | August 2025 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17902719 | CONSENT-BASED AUTHORIZATION SYSTEM FOR TAXATION AND CONSUMER SERVICES | September 2022 | September 2025 | Allow | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17592356 | SYSTEMS AND METHOD FOR EXTENDABLE MICRONETS | February 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 45 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17579720 | AUTONOMOUS MACHINE OPERATION WITH BLOCKCHAIN AUTHENTICATION | January 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17486678 | INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEMS AND RELATED METHODS TO PREVENT TAMPERING AND VERIFY THE INTEGRITY OF NON-VOLATILE DATA STORED WITHIN NON-VOLATILE MEMORY | September 2021 | January 2025 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15429590 | COMPRESSING ENCRYPTED DATA WITHOUT THE ENCRYPTION KEY | February 2017 | March 2017 | Allow | 1 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14993577 | COMPRESSING ENCRYPTED DATA WITHOUT THE ENCRYPTION KEY | January 2016 | October 2016 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14949307 | Extracting Entropy From Machine Vibration | November 2015 | September 2017 | Allow | 22 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14845309 | AUTHENTICATION METHOD AND SYSTEM USING PASSWORD AS THE AUTHENTICATION KEY | September 2015 | June 2017 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14713493 | Polymorphic Treatment of Annotated Content | May 2015 | May 2017 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14712777 | MITIGATING A COMPROMISED NETWORK ON CHIP | May 2015 | January 2017 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14659082 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROTECTING MESSAGE DATA | March 2015 | April 2017 | Allow | 25 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14659024 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROTECTING MESSAGE DATA | March 2015 | March 2017 | Allow | 24 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14600394 | NODE DEVICE, COMMUNICATION METHOD AND NETWORK SYSTEM | January 2015 | December 2016 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14581055 | COMPRESSING ENCRYPTED DATA WITHOUT THE ENCRYPTION KEY | December 2014 | November 2015 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14572060 | USING TRUSTED EXECUTION ENVIRONMENTS FOR SECURITY OF CODE AND DATA | December 2014 | November 2017 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14318394 | DOMAIN POLICY SPECIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT | June 2014 | January 2016 | Allow | 19 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14106225 | NETWORK ENCRYPTED DATA OBJECT STORED ON AN ENCRYPTED FILE SYSTEM | December 2013 | February 2017 | Allow | 38 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13911211 | EDITING DIGITAL FILM | June 2013 | August 2016 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13869256 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ROAMING DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT CONTENT IN DEVICE | April 2013 | November 2015 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13793941 | RECOMMENDATION ENGINE FOR UNIFIED IDENTITY MANAGEMENT ACROSS INTERNAL AND SHARED COMPUTING APPLICATIONS | March 2013 | October 2014 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13764524 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROTECTING MESSAGE DATA | February 2013 | April 2017 | Allow | 50 | 4 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 13763914 | SECURING DISPLAY OUTPUT DATA AGAINST MALICIOUS SOFTWARE ATTACKS | February 2013 | June 2015 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13763116 | BARCODE AUTHENTICATION FOR RESOURCE REQUESTS | February 2013 | February 2016 | Allow | 37 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13762195 | Method for protecting the integrity of a fixed-length data structure | February 2013 | January 2016 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13388992 | Method for Generating Cryptographic Half-Keys, and Associated System | July 2012 | June 2014 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12925103 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF GENERATING ENCRYPTION/DECRYPTION KEYS AND ENCRYPTING/DECRYPTING A DERIVATIVE WORK | October 2010 | September 2014 | Allow | 47 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12823278 | PHYSICALLY UNCLONABLE FUNCTION IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THRESHOLD VOLTAGE COMPARISON | June 2010 | August 2013 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12760091 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF ENCRYPTING A DERIVATIVE WORK USING A CIPHER CREATED FROM ITS SOURCE | April 2010 | December 2012 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12600808 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AUTHENTICATING INTERNET USER IDENTITY | November 2009 | December 2012 | Allow | 36 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12610754 | COMPRESSING BLOCK-CIPHER ENCRYPTED DATA | November 2009 | August 2014 | Allow | 58 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12169103 | DELTA-SIGMA MODULATED VIDEO PLAYBACK APPARATUS, METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM | July 2008 | November 2013 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12025678 | DETECTING UNAUTHORIZED USE OF COMPUTING DEVICES BASED ON BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS | February 2008 | July 2013 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11996525 | ELECTRO-MECHANICAL SYSTEM FOR NON-DUPLICATION OF AUDIO FILES | January 2008 | November 2011 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11970421 | EDITING DIGITAL FILM | January 2008 | April 2013 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11968410 | DETAILED INFORMATION PROVIDING METHOD AND APPARATUS OF PERSONAL VIDEO RECORDER | January 2008 | June 2012 | Allow | 54 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11732199 | Method and apparatus for generating one-time passwords | April 2007 | September 2014 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11681277 | MULTI-DOMAIN DYNAMIC GROUP VIRTUAL PRIVATE NETWORKS | March 2007 | December 2013 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11671141 | SECURE PROCESSOR ARRANGEMENT HAVING SHARED MEMORY | February 2007 | June 2012 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11572635 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR COMPUTATIONAL TRANSFORMATION | January 2007 | January 2012 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11653182 | ENCRYPTION PROCESSING APPARATUS, ENCRYPTION PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM | January 2007 | July 2010 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11619856 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SECURITY PLANNING WITH SOFT SECURITY CONSTRAINTS | January 2007 | October 2011 | Allow | 57 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 11335892 | SMART PASSWORD DETERMINATION | January 2006 | December 2012 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner LAGOR, ALEXANDER.
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, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner LAGOR, ALEXANDER works in Art Unit 2437 and has examined 39 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 97.4%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 37 months.
Examiner LAGOR, ALEXANDER's allowance rate of 97.4% places them in the 89% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by LAGOR, ALEXANDER receive 2.77 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 81% 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 LAGOR, ALEXANDER is 37 months. This places the examiner in the 33% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -3.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LAGOR, ALEXANDER. This interview benefit is in the 7% 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, 37.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 85% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 20.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 24% 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 8% 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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 90% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 66.7% 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, 44.4% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 37% 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 2.6% of allowed cases (in the 77% 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 18% 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.