Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19022782 | THERMAL IMAGER USING THREE-DIMENSIONAL ULTRASOUND IMAGING SYSTEM | January 2025 | December 2025 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18689736 | COMMUNICATION DEVICE SUPPORTING IP-BASED RAPIENET AND NETWORK SYSTEM COMPRISING SAME | March 2024 | September 2025 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18539301 | METHOD FOR ENABLING INTENT AND APPARATUS | December 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18533352 | NETWORK TRAFFIC TRANSMISSION BASED ON NEXT-NEXT-HOP INDICATION | December 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18526703 | VEHICLE COMMUNICATION METHOD, SYSTEM AND CENTRAL GATEWAY | December 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18499218 | COMPUTER SYSTEM AND NETWORK SERVICE CONSTRUCTION METHOD | November 2023 | October 2024 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18226070 | SYSTEM PERFORMANCE DEGRADATION MITIGATION BASED ON DIFFERENT COMPUTE RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS | July 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 27 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 18135995 | Congestion Control for Networks Using Deployable INT | April 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 18161647 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RISK MONITORING OF CLOUD BASED COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTS | January 2023 | July 2025 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18087624 | CLIENT-TO-CLIENT MESSAGE SYNCHRONIZATION | December 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 28 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17941877 | DYNAMIC GENERATION AND PROVISIONING OF DIGITAL CONTENT TO NETWORK-CONNECTED DEVICES | September 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 41 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17801292 | SYSTEM, METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR ENHANCING SOCIAL PLATFORM INFORMATION PROCESSING | August 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17742117 | MOBILE DEVICE APPLICATION FOR PROCURING NETWORK SERVICES | May 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17307804 | COMMUNICATION EXCHANGES AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF | May 2021 | May 2023 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17129607 | METHODS AND APPARATUS TO MONITOR TELEMETRY DATA ASSOCIATED WITH COMPUTING DEVICES | December 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 52 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17075990 | MEDICAL DEVICE AND METHOD FOR RECEIVING DATA IN A MEDICAL DEVICE | October 2020 | June 2024 | Abandon | 44 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16962850 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD FOR CONTROLLING TRANSITION OF FUNCTION BETWEEN DEVICES | July 2020 | October 2022 | Abandon | 27 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16861930 | VERIFYING OPERATIONAL STATUSES OF AGENTS INTERFACING WITH DIGITAL ASSISTANT APPLICATIONS | April 2020 | November 2022 | Abandon | 30 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16695721 | Methods, Systems, and Apparatus for Text to Persistent Messaging | November 2019 | July 2023 | Abandon | 44 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16109858 | SYSTEM OF REDUNDANTLY CLUSTERED MACHINES TO PROVIDE FAILOVER MECHANISMS FOR MOBILE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND NETWORK RESOURCE CONSERVATION | August 2018 | May 2019 | Abandon | 9 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15470834 | STATEFUL RESOURCE POOL MANAGEMENT FOR JOB EXECUTION | March 2017 | July 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15470837 | EVENT-DRIVEN RESOURCE POOL MANAGEMENT | March 2017 | July 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14919050 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OUTPUTTING NOTIFICATION EVENT | October 2015 | November 2019 | Abandon | 49 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 14251466 | IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEM, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | April 2014 | September 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 12998262 | NETWORK DEVICE AND METHOD FOR SETTING UP AN IPTV SESSION | March 2011 | February 2017 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BURGESS, GLENTON 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 BURGESS, GLENTON B works in Art Unit 2454 and has examined 12 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 0.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 49 months.
Examiner BURGESS, GLENTON B's allowance rate of 0.0% 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 BURGESS, GLENTON B receive 4.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 97% 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 BURGESS, GLENTON B is 49 months. This places the examiner in the 7% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BURGESS, GLENTON B. This interview benefit is in the 13% 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 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 1% 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, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 98% 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.
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.