Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18648699 | SERVICE APPLICATION DETECTION WITH SMART CACHING | April 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 13 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17941049 | Access Load Control in Peer-to-Peer Networks | September 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15764772 | Methods, Apparatus and Systems For Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Based Surrogate Server Management Under Dynamic Conditions And Varying Constraints | March 2018 | June 2021 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15694487 | NETWORK COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR LABORATORY INSTRUMENTS | September 2017 | December 2019 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14948147 | DATA REPLICATION IN A DATA STORAGE SYSTEM HAVING A DISJOINTED NETWORK | November 2015 | August 2020 | Abandon | 57 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14840809 | REAL TIME DATA STREAMING FROM A MAINFRAME COMPUTER TO OFF PLATFORM DESTINATIONS | August 2015 | February 2020 | Abandon | 53 | 3 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 14600167 | CONTENT PROVIDING APPARATUS AND METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT | January 2015 | March 2017 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14600110 | CHAT SYSTEM | January 2015 | March 2017 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14499683 | Session Handling in a Stateless Communication Environment | September 2014 | August 2017 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14379282 | A method and a system for generating dynamic recommendations in a distributed networking system | August 2014 | March 2017 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14310198 | Proactive Change of Communication Models | June 2014 | April 2017 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14310529 | COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM STORING DATA ASSOCIATION PROGRAM AND DATA ASSOCIATION METHOD | June 2014 | May 2017 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14169231 | METHOD AND SYSTEMS FOR SYNCING CONTACTS ON MULTIPLE DEVICES | January 2014 | April 2017 | Abandon | 39 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14236104 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DATA COMMUNICATION IN HIERARCHICALLY STRUCTURED NETWORK | January 2014 | March 2017 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14129774 | CONTEXTUAL BROWSER COMPOSITION AND KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION | December 2013 | March 2017 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14140641 | MECHANISM FOR FACILITATING DYNAMIC GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION OF CANNED RESPONSES ON COMPUTING DEVICES | December 2013 | July 2017 | Abandon | 42 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 14140809 | Method, sharing platform, and system for sharing image-editing action | December 2013 | March 2017 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14097176 | Apparatus, System, and Method for Reducing Data to Facilitate Identification and Presentation of Data Variations | December 2013 | July 2017 | Abandon | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14048396 | VEHICLE INFORMATION PROVIDING SYSTEM | October 2013 | January 2017 | Abandon | 40 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13947396 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SUPPORTING WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS | July 2013 | June 2017 | Abandon | 47 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13722605 | Cloud Remote Wakeup | December 2012 | March 2017 | Abandon | 51 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13627369 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR INTEGRALLY MANAGING MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES | September 2012 | February 2020 | Abandon | 60 | 9 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 13408362 | Processing Data Relating To A Communication Event | February 2012 | April 2016 | Abandon | 50 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13252583 | System and Method for Optimizing the Physical Development of Athletes | October 2011 | November 2014 | Abandon | 37 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13195866 | Method of Performing Multiple Connection and Related Communication Device | August 2011 | December 2015 | Abandon | 53 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13042883 | Techniques For Delivering Personalized Content With A Real-Time Routing Network | March 2011 | January 2015 | Abandon | 47 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12968761 | OPEN ACCESS POINT, TERMINAL AND INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDING METHOD THEREOF | December 2010 | May 2015 | Abandon | 53 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 12779372 | DELIVERY OF TARGETED CONTENT RELATED TO A LEARNED AND PREDICTED FUTURE BEHAVIOR BASED ON SPATIAL, TEMPORAL, AND USER ATTRIBUTES AND BEHAVIORAL CONSTRAINTS | May 2010 | August 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12799794 | System and method for conditionally transmitting one or more locum tenentes | April 2010 | March 2015 | Abandon | 58 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12534579 | WORKFLOW AUTOMATION & REQUEST PROCESSING | August 2009 | September 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 12129119 | User-Mode Prototypes in Kernel-Mode Protocol Stacks | May 2008 | November 2014 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11669660 | System and Method For Transactional, Addressable Communication | January 2007 | April 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SRIVASTAVA, VIVEK.
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 SRIVASTAVA, VIVEK works in Art Unit 2449 and has examined 31 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 3.2%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.
Examiner SRIVASTAVA, VIVEK's allowance rate of 3.2% places them in the 0% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by SRIVASTAVA, VIVEK receive 2.87 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 93% 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 SRIVASTAVA, VIVEK is 42 months. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -4.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SRIVASTAVA, VIVEK. This interview benefit is in the 4% 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, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 0% 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 0% 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.
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 13% 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.