Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17087295 | SESSION MONITORING FOR SELECTIVE INTERVENTION | November 2020 | March 2024 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16649797 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING ELECTRONIC DEVICE | March 2020 | October 2023 | Abandon | 43 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16485143 | AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE AND AUTHENTICATION AGENCY METHOD THEREOF | August 2019 | May 2024 | Abandon | 57 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16179836 | DETERMINING STORAGE FOR OBJECTS OF VARIOUS SIZES WHILE MAXIMIZING UTILIZATION AND ACCESS | November 2018 | December 2020 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16176489 | MULTI-SESSION LOW LATENCY ENCODING | October 2018 | October 2022 | Abandon | 47 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16172419 | COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR OPTIMAL PLACEMENT AND EXECUTION OF SOFTWARE WORKLOADS IN A GEOGRAPHICALLY DISTRIBUTED NETWORK OF COMPUTE NODES | October 2018 | January 2023 | Abandon | 51 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15388620 | SYNCHRONIZED COMMUNICATION PLATFORM | December 2016 | May 2019 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15360744 | System for Synchronizing Nodes on a Network | November 2016 | November 2017 | Abandon | 11 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15280816 | APPARATUS, METHOD, AND PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR CONTENT NOTIFICATION | September 2016 | October 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14964350 | CLOUD-BASED PERSONAL SERVICES SYSTEM | December 2015 | May 2018 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14938920 | SERVER CLUSTER PATCH TRACKING TO FACILITATE CODE LEVEL MATCHING OF ADDED SERVERS | November 2015 | July 2017 | Abandon | 20 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14931556 | INSTANT INFORMATION EXCHANGE SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ONLINE SPORTS TEAMS | November 2015 | April 2018 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14799757 | UNIFIED MESSAGING PLATFORM FOR PROVIDING INTERACTIVE LIST OBJECTS | July 2015 | August 2018 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14571904 | REQUEST DISTRIBUTION METHOD AND INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS | December 2014 | September 2017 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14386803 | LIVE VIDEO CONTENT EXCHANGE | September 2014 | May 2017 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14486492 | SYSTEM, COMPUTER PRODUCT, AND METHOD FOR IMPLEMENTING A CLOUD SERVICE WITH PRIVATE STORAGE | September 2014 | February 2017 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14461916 | Location Information from a Mobile Device | August 2014 | September 2017 | Abandon | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14313351 | AVN FOR VEHICLE AND MOBILE DEVICE | June 2014 | April 2017 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14312587 | SOFTWARE INTEGRATED ELECTRONIC MESSAGING CARDS | June 2014 | January 2017 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14357610 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PRIVATE DISTRIBUTED COLLABORATIVE FILTERING | May 2014 | November 2016 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14272479 | Method For Sharing By Wireless Non-Volatile Memory | May 2014 | January 2017 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14008548 | Method and System for Providing Multimedia Content Sharing Service While Conducting Communication Service | December 2013 | October 2016 | Abandon | 37 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 13945358 | IWARP RDMA READ EXTENSIONS | July 2013 | September 2016 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13943730 | NETWORK SERVICE PROVIDER SELECTION FOR VEHICLE-CONNECTED MOBILE DEVICES | July 2013 | November 2016 | Abandon | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13869966 | DECENTRALIZED ADMINISTRATION OF ACCESS TO TARGET SYSTEMS IN IDENTITY MANAGEMENT | April 2013 | October 2018 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13804488 | PORTABLE TERMINAL DEVICE, DATA MANAGEMENT METHOD, AND DATA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM | March 2013 | April 2017 | Abandon | 49 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13734269 | SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND DEVICES FOR SELECTING A CONTENT DELIVERY METHOD BASED ON DEMAND FOR PARTICULAR CONTENT BY CUSTOMERS | January 2013 | June 2017 | Abandon | 54 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13533525 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE, CLOUD STORAGE SYSTEM FOR MANAGING CLOUD STORAGE SPACES, METHOD AND TANGIBLE EMBODIED COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM THEREOF | June 2012 | February 2017 | Abandon | 56 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13385375 | STREAMING MEDIA DELIVERY SYSTEM | February 2012 | September 2012 | Allow | 7 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12984533 | Method And Apparatus For Protecting Against A Rogue Certificate | January 2011 | February 2017 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | No | No |
| 12800152 | STREAMING MEDIA BUFFERING SYSTEM | May 2010 | July 2011 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11768323 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SYNCHRONIZING CONTENT DIRECTORY SERVICE IN UNIVERSAL PLUG AND PLAY NETWORK | June 2007 | July 2017 | Abandon | 60 | 13 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11350430 | Policy administration and provisioning | February 2006 | May 2017 | Abandon | 60 | 14 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner DIVECHA, KAMAL B.
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, 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.
⚠ 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 DIVECHA, KAMAL B works in Art Unit 2453 and has examined 33 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 12.1%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 37 months.
Examiner DIVECHA, KAMAL B's allowance rate of 12.1% places them in the 2% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by DIVECHA, KAMAL B receive 3.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 83% 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 DIVECHA, KAMAL B is 37 months. This places the examiner in the 32% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +20.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by DIVECHA, KAMAL B. This interview benefit is in the 64% 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, 1.9% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 2% 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 5.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 7% 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 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 0% 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, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 45% 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 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 20% 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.