Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18679631 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING CURRENT RISK OF CYBERSECURITY VULNERABILITIES | May 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18433560 | TRANSMISSION DEVICE, TRANSMISSION METHOD, RECEPTION DEVICE, AND RECEPTION METHOD | February 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18093296 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DHCP POLICY MANAGEMENT | January 2023 | March 2024 | Abandon | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18145318 | METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR CONTROLLING TRAFFIC FLOW IN A NETWORK | December 2022 | June 2024 | Abandon | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18087195 | METHODS FOR EXCHANGING CONTENT ROUTING INFORMATION IN EXCLUSIVE PATH ROUTING OVERLAY NETWORK | December 2022 | May 2024 | Abandon | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17967763 | NETWORK WORKFLOW REPLAY TOOL | October 2022 | June 2024 | Abandon | 20 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17807668 | LOCAL MANAGEMENT OF QUALITY OF EXPERIENCE IN A HOME NETWORK | June 2022 | April 2024 | Abandon | 22 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17657221 | Systems and Methods for Restricting the Routing Scope of an Anycast Service | March 2022 | October 2024 | Abandon | 30 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17587030 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INFORMATION SHARING | January 2022 | July 2023 | Abandon | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17393216 | System and Method for Providing Remote Attendance to a Live Event | August 2021 | May 2023 | Abandon | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17372643 | ON-DEMAND LIVENESS UPDATES BY SERVERS SHARING A FILE SYSTEM | July 2021 | September 2024 | Abandon | 38 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17227137 | INSTALLATION AND SCALING FOR VCORES | April 2021 | March 2024 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17210186 | UTILIZING FLEX-ALGORITHMS WITH ROUTE REFLECTION | March 2021 | August 2024 | Abandon | 41 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17206150 | METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING EXISTING GROUPS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND GROUP DEVICE | March 2021 | December 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17203790 | PROJECTION-TYPE VIDEO CONFERENCE SYSTEM AND VIDEO PROJECTING METHOD | March 2021 | August 2023 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17184830 | LOOP AVOIDANCE PROTOCOL | February 2021 | September 2024 | Abandon | 42 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17184766 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OBTAINING INTERIOR GATEWAY PROTOCOL DOMAIN THROUGH DIVISION IN NETWORK | February 2021 | September 2024 | Abandon | 42 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17148528 | OPTICAL DATA ROUTING VIA SWITCHLESS DECISION TREE | January 2021 | October 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17109078 | FLEXIBLE NETWORK INTERFACES AS A FRAMEWORK FOR A NETWORK APPLIANCE | December 2020 | January 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17105434 | ROUTE GENERATION METHOD AND DEVICE | November 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16982177 | OPERATION MANAGEMENT APPARATUS, METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | September 2020 | September 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16788496 | Real-Time Email Address Verification | February 2020 | November 2021 | Abandon | 21 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16379747 | System and Method for a Scalable IPTV Recorder and Cloud DVR | April 2019 | November 2021 | Abandon | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15105497 | ENDOSCOPE AND METHOD FOR USING SAME | June 2016 | August 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14737700 | ENFORCING POLICIES BASED ON INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM EXTERNAL SYSTEMS | June 2015 | June 2020 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13988753 | COMMUNICATION PATH CONTROL SYSTEM, PATH CONTROL DEVICE, COMMUNICATION PATH CONTROL METHOD, AND PATH CONTROL PROGRAM | May 2013 | July 2018 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13804589 | Method and Apparatus for Mobile Device Connectivity Compatibility Facilitation | March 2013 | September 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13749374 | COMPUTERIZED MEDIA INFORMATION STREAMING SYSTEM | January 2013 | September 2015 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13733822 | Aggregation and Categorization | January 2013 | June 2015 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13710306 | INTERNET-PADS THAT INCLUDE A DIGITAL CAMERA, A TOUCH SENSITIVE SCREEN INTERFACE, AND SUPPORT FOR VOICE ACTIVATED COMMANDS | December 2012 | March 2014 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13708607 | SMART PHONES THAT INCLUDE A DIGITAL CAMERA, A TOUCH SENSITIVE SCREEN, SUPPORT FOR VOICE ACTIVATED COMMANDS, AND SUPPORT TO AT LEAST PART OF A PROTOCOL WITHIN IEEE 802.11 STANDARDS | December 2012 | March 2014 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13655950 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING DATA IN MIDDLEWARE FOR DATA DISTRIBUTION SERVICE | October 2012 | September 2015 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13655530 | MULTI-PLATFORM CONTENT STREAMING | October 2012 | November 2015 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13599484 | COMPUTERS AND MICROCHIPS WITH A FARADAY CAGE, WITH A SIDE PROTECTED BY AN INTERNAL HARDWARE FIREWALL AND UNPROTECTED SIDE CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET FOR NETWORK OPERATIONS, AND WITH INTERNAL HARDWARE COMPARTMENTS | August 2012 | July 2013 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13551869 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SYNCHRONIZING AN ADAPTABLE SECURITY LEVEL IN AN ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION | July 2012 | September 2013 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13528249 | Transactional Watch Mechanism | June 2012 | April 2020 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13488595 | COMPUTER NETWORK INTRUSION DETECTION | June 2012 | September 2013 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13483794 | ROUTER AND PERSONAL DEVICE FOR MONITORING AND CONTROLLING DATA TRANSFER RATES ON A LOCAL AREA NETWORK | May 2012 | October 2014 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 13484067 | Configuring Wireless Devices Over a Wireless Connection | May 2012 | January 2015 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13481761 | SEAMLESS DIGITAL STREAMING OVER DIFFERENT DEVICE TYPES | May 2012 | March 2015 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13475905 | System and Method for Generating Theme Based Dynamic Groups | May 2012 | August 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13398434 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT POLICIES | February 2012 | August 2013 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13347556 | SYSTEM AND PROCESS FOR COMMUNICATION AND PROMOTION OF AUDIO WITHIN A SOCIAL NETWORK | January 2012 | December 2013 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13151707 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING SELF-HEALING CAPABILITES IN A DISTRIBUTED KNOWLEGDE NETWORK/INTELLIGENT SENSOR NETWORK | June 2011 | September 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 9 | 0 | No | No |
| 13012473 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR BEST EFFORT PROPAGATION OF SECURITY GROUP INFORMATION | January 2011 | August 2013 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12957957 | DATA STORE INCLUDING A FILE LOCATION ATTRIBUTE | December 2010 | September 2013 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12994090 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY | November 2010 | August 2013 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12948037 | SINGLE SIGN ON WITH MULTIPLE AUTHENTICATION FACTORS | November 2010 | August 2013 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12880171 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REPORTING A POSITION OF A VIDEO DEVICE AND NETWORK VIDEO TRANSMITTER THEREOF | September 2010 | May 2015 | Abandon | 56 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12693911 | COMMUNICATION APPARATUS, COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, CERTIFICATE TRANSMISSION METHOD, ANOMALY DETECTION METHOD AND A PROGRAM THEREFOR | January 2010 | July 2013 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12275897 | Unified Proxy Location Selection Mechanism | November 2008 | May 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12006457 | DIGITAL VERIFIED IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM AND METHOD | January 2008 | February 2015 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11643651 | Method of recording and reproducing surveillance images in DVR | December 2006 | October 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10849318 | METHOD AND SYSTEMS FOR COMPUTER SECURITY | May 2004 | May 2014 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10397042 | Device and method for concealing customer information from a customer service representative | March 2003 | July 2013 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner LOUIE, OSCAR A.
With a 75.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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, 27.3% 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.
✓ 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 LOUIE, OSCAR A works in Art Unit 2445 and has examined 46 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 32.6%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 38 months.
Examiner LOUIE, OSCAR A's allowance rate of 32.6% places them in the 5% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by LOUIE, OSCAR A receive 2.96 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 85% 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 LOUIE, OSCAR A is 38 months. This places the examiner in the 29% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -10.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LOUIE, OSCAR A. This interview benefit is in the 3% 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, 10.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 5% 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 7.7% 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.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 142.9% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 88% 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 69.2% of appeals filed. This is in the 55% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 55.6% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows above-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. The mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) provides an opportunity for reconsideration.
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 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.