USPTO Examiner CARDONE JASON D - Art Unit 2458

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18757880PACKET GENERATION METHODS AND DEVICES FOR ORDERED DATA OFFLOADSJune 2024March 2026Allow2010YesNo
18758930SERVICE MAPS FOR DISTRIBUTED NATIVE APPLICATIONSJune 2024February 2026Allow2010YesNo
18680169AUTOMATION FOR INSERTING MEETING CONTENT IN A SCREEN-SHARED APPLICATION FILEMay 2024January 2026Allow2010YesNo
18731159SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR NETWORK ANOMALY DETECTION AND POLICY-BASED NETWORK STATE RESTORATIONMay 2024October 2025Allow1720YesNo
18678476ENHANCED EDGE NETWORK PEER-TO-PEER FILE DOWNLOADSMay 2024December 2025Allow1810NoNo
18714636MESSAGE PROCESSING METHOD FOR IN-SITU FLOW DETECTION, AND NETWORK DEVICEMay 2024November 2025Allow1810NoNo
18671615UNIFIED NOTIFICATION SYSTEMMay 2024March 2026Allow2130NoNo
18653818METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING DATA IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMMay 2024September 2025Allow1720YesNo
18618245METHOD, DEVICE, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR TRANSMISSION OF REPLICATED DATAMarch 2024September 2025Allow1810NoNo
18618260METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATICALLY GENERATING NETWORK DESIGN DOCUMENTS USING GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) MODELSMarch 2024October 2025Allow1810NoNo
18696057COMMUNICATION SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE CAPABLE OF SWITCHING BETWEEN REDUNDANT MODE AND NON-REDUNDANT MODEMarch 2024October 2025Allow1810NoNo
18616692RESOURCE PROTECTION FOR A MICROSERVICE-BASED APPLICATIONMarch 2024September 2025Allow1810YesNo
18608366SOCIAL MEDIA POST SUBSCRIBE REQUESTS FOR BUFFER USER ACCOUNTSMarch 2024July 2025Allow1620NoNo
18557851CONTACT TRACING METHOD AND RELATED DEVICEOctober 2023March 2026Allow2910NoNo
18372443OVERLAY-BASED OAM FOR BGP FAULT DETECTIONSeptember 2023February 2026Allow2910YesNo
18470764SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC SHAPING FOR AN IN-VEHICLE NETWORKSeptember 2023May 2025Allow2010YesNo
18546952REQUESTING DATA FROM AN OAMAugust 2023February 2026Allow3010YesNo
18264813COMMUNICATION DEVICE AND COMMUNICATION METHODAugust 2023February 2026Allow3110NoNo
18366288METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DATA TRANSMISSIONAugust 2023January 2026Allow2910NoNo
18344598METHOD FOR DETERMINING MEC ACCESS POINT AND APPARATUSJune 2023November 2025Allow2910NoNo
18259584CONTROL OF CLOSED NETWORK USING NETWORK SLICEJune 2023November 2025Allow2810YesNo
18268579WIRELESS COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE OF REDUCING INFLUENCE OF AN INTERFERENCE SIGNAL ON A RADIO SIGNALJune 2023January 2026Allow3110NoNo
18039212REMOTE CONTROL OF INTERNET-OF-THINGS DEVICESMay 2023November 2025Allow3010NoNo
18315801SERVICE ASSURANCE MONITORING BASED ON TELEMETRYMay 2023January 2024Allow940YesNo
18312695METHODS AND DEVICES FOR OPERATING VEHICLES USING DECENTRALIZED COMMUNICATIONMay 2023December 2025Allow3110NoNo
18250623Methods, Entities, and Computer Readable Media for Error HandlingApril 2023January 2026Allow3320NoNo
18249821METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONApril 2023October 2025Allow2910YesNo
18301981Provisioning for Event Trigger Based Policy at Near-RT RIC on A1 InterfaceApril 2023January 2026Allow3310NoNo
18300803CONVEYOR CONTROLLER WITH SIDEBAND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMApril 2023November 2025Allow3120YesNo
17941297UNDERWATER DATA CENTER SYSTEMS WITH CABLES AND ENERGY STORAGESeptember 2022April 2024Abandon2030YesNo
17824313METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIA FOR OPTIMIZED MULTI-DOMAIN SERVICE COMMUNICATION PROXY (SCP) ROUTINGMay 2022January 2026Allow4410NoNo
16916580Packet Sending Method, Device, and SystemJune 2020July 2025Abandon6050YesYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CARDONE, JASON D.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
1
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
6.8%
Lower than average

What This Means

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.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
1
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
3.9%
Lower than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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.

Strategic Recommendations

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 CARDONE, JASON D - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner CARDONE, JASON D works in Art Unit 2458 and has examined 1 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 10000 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner CARDONE, JASON D'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.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by CARDONE, JASON D receive 5.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 99% 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by CARDONE, JASON D is 10000 months. This places the examiner in the 0% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

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.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.
  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.