Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18883271 | NETWORK SEGMENTATION FOR SECURE NETWORK TUNNELING | September 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 15 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18643201 | INTERIOR GATEWAY PROTOCOL AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SLEEP STATE FOR A NETWORK | April 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18628521 | HETEROGENEOUS NETWORK HARVESTING MODELING FOR WORKLOAD PLACEMENT | April 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18621225 | METHOD FOR DETERMINING APPLICATION SERVER FOR A TERMINAL | March 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18443170 | EXPLAINABLE VULNERABILITY DETECTION METHOD AND SYSTEM BASED ON DUAL-VIEW CAUSAL REASONING | February 2024 | July 2025 | Allow | 17 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17691408 | COORDINATED FREQUENCY USAGE IN MULTI-AP ENVIRONMENTS | March 2022 | August 2025 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17518500 | RELAY DEVICE FOR VEHICLE COMMUNICATION, RELAY METHOD FOR VEHICLE COMMUNICATION, AND NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUM ON WHICH A PROGRAM IS STORED | November 2021 | May 2024 | Abandon | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17219436 | Data Capture, Dissemination and Enhanced Visual Overlay | March 2021 | August 2025 | Allow | 53 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17074459 | TRANSFER OF DATA STREAMING SERVICES TO PROVIDE CONTINUOUS DATA FLOW | October 2020 | August 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16914698 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS THAT USE FEEDBACK TO DISTRIBUTE AND MANAGE ALERTS | June 2020 | July 2024 | Abandon | 49 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16643575 | CONDITIONAL ROUTING DEVICE AND METHOD | March 2020 | June 2024 | Abandon | 51 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16607095 | PERMISSION GRANTING METHOD AND SYSTEM BASED ON ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN ROLES AND USERS | October 2019 | April 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16584359 | Updating the Recipients of a Previously Delivered Electronic Message | September 2019 | October 2023 | Abandon | 48 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15248834 | Network Packet Latency Management | August 2016 | March 2023 | Allow | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13562392 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGING ELECTRONIC MAIL | July 2012 | August 2014 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13192371 | SYSTEM, METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR INTERFACING ASSETS OF AN ENTITY WITH A SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICE | July 2011 | September 2014 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13095675 | CONTENT CONVERSION SYSTEM AND CONTENT CONVERSION SERVER | April 2011 | August 2014 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11470580 | DETECTING MISSING ELEMENTS IN A STORAGE AREA NETWORK WITH MULTIPLE SOURCES OF INFORMATION | September 2006 | December 2009 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11003848 | EFFICIENT TRANSFER OF MESSAGES USING RELIABLE MESSAGING PROTOCOLS FOR WEB SERVICES | December 2004 | February 2010 | Allow | 60 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner TAYLOR, NICHOLAS 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 TAYLOR, NICHOLAS R works in Art Unit 2443 and has examined 13 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 53.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 48 months.
Examiner TAYLOR, NICHOLAS R's allowance rate of 53.8% places them in the 15% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by TAYLOR, NICHOLAS R receive 4.31 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 98% 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 TAYLOR, NICHOLAS R is 48 months. This places the examiner in the 8% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +22.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by TAYLOR, NICHOLAS R. This interview benefit is in the 68% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 18.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 18% 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, 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 15% 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.
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.