Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17134054 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS OF AUTOMATIC NETWORK SERVICE INITIATION USING A NETWORK SERVICE SERVER | December 2020 | March 2022 | Allow | 14 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17134049 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS OF AUTOMATIC NETWORK SERVICE INITIATION | December 2020 | March 2023 | Allow | 26 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17255956 | COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL DISCOVER METHOD IN CONSTRAINED APPLICATION PROTOCOL (COAP) | December 2020 | June 2024 | Allow | 41 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17126325 | AUTOMATED NETWORKING DEVICE REPLACEMENT SYSTEM | December 2020 | October 2023 | Allow | 34 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17125429 | SYSTEM FOR NETWORKING DEVICE WITH DATA MODEL ENGINES FOR CONFIGURING NETWORK PARAMETERS | December 2020 | November 2022 | Abandon | 23 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17032799 | HYPOTHESIS DRIVEN DIAGNOSIS OF NETWORK SYSTEMS | September 2020 | August 2023 | Allow | 35 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17030839 | LINK CONFIGURATION METHOD AND CONTROLLER | September 2020 | October 2023 | Allow | 37 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17023700 | NVME-OVER-FABRICS GATEWAY SYSTEM | September 2020 | April 2023 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16944942 | Address Management Method and System, and Device | July 2020 | September 2022 | Allow | 26 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16958291 | VIRTUALISATION OF A CONNECTED OBJECT | June 2020 | January 2022 | Abandon | 19 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16850954 | COMMUNICATIONS METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR MIGRATING A NETWORK INTERFACE AND/OR IP ADDRESS FROM ONE POD TO ANOTHER POD IN A KUBERNETES SYSTEM | April 2020 | May 2023 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16848135 | UPDATING STATEFUL SYSTEM IN SERVER CLUSTER | April 2020 | April 2022 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16621582 | METHOD FOR CONFIGURING A CENTRAL CONTROL UNIT BELONGING TO A HOME AUTOMATION SYSTEM | April 2020 | November 2023 | Abandon | 47 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16832962 | METHODS AND APPARATUS TO FACILITATE DEVICE IDENTIFICATION | March 2020 | July 2023 | Allow | 40 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16633968 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ESTABLISHING FAULT TOLERANT COMMUNICATION CHANNEL BETWEEN TERMINAL DEVICE AND TARGET SYSTEM | January 2020 | November 2021 | Abandon | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16721769 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING INFORMATION | December 2019 | September 2022 | Abandon | 33 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16719944 | METHODS AND APPARATUS TO MONITOR STREAMING MEDIA | December 2019 | October 2021 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16716933 | ONLINE SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RECEIVING FEEDBACK REGARDING APPAREL OPTIONS VIA AN ONLINE COMMUNITY | December 2019 | December 2021 | Abandon | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16714090 | INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | December 2019 | September 2021 | Abandon | 21 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16714559 | ENHANCED CHATBOT RESPONSES DURING CONVERSATIONS WITH UNKNOWN USERS BASED ON MATURITY METRICS DETERMINED FROM HISTORY OF CHATBOT INTERACTIONS | December 2019 | May 2022 | Allow | 29 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16468424 | FAILURE DETECTION BY TEST DATA PACKETS OF REDUNDANCY PROTOCOLS | June 2019 | December 2023 | Abandon | 54 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16392825 | ADAPTIVE THRESHOLD SELECTION FOR SD-WAN TUNNEL FAILURE PREDICTION | April 2019 | September 2022 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16328450 | METHOD FOR ASSIGNING A MAC ADDRESS, AND DATABASE WITH MAC ADDRESSES | February 2019 | March 2023 | Allow | 49 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16281478 | METHOD OF PERFORMING FAULT MANAGEMENT IN AN ELECTRONIC APPARATUS | February 2019 | October 2023 | Abandon | 56 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16219434 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING VIDEO QUALITY, AND METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR LOCATING NETWORK FAULT | December 2018 | September 2022 | Abandon | 45 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 15833523 | TECHNOLOGIES FOR MANAGING A FLEXIBLE HOST INTERFACE OF A NETWORK INTERFACE CONTROLLER | December 2017 | January 2022 | Abandon | 50 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner NGUYEN, VINH.
With a 100.0% 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, 100.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
✓ 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 is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner NGUYEN, VINH works in Art Unit 2453 and has examined 26 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 57.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.
Examiner NGUYEN, VINH's allowance rate of 57.7% places them in the 19% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by NGUYEN, VINH receive 3.31 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 89% 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 NGUYEN, VINH is 34 months. This places the examiner in the 43% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +71.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by NGUYEN, VINH. This interview benefit is in the 98% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 26.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 47% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
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, 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 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 17% 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, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 91% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.
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.