Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18657635 | Network Health Monitor Within A Coarse Grained Reconfigurable Architecture Processor | May 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 13 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18647854 | CONNECTING SERVICE LEVEL OUTPUTS TO ORCHESTRATION INPUTS | April 2024 | August 2025 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18644310 | OPEN RADIO ACCESS NETWORK CLOUD INTELLIGENT CONTROLLER | April 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18620157 | NETWORK MANAGEMENT METHOD AND APPARATUS | March 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18408547 | DETERMINING INFORMATION RELATED TO A DESIGNATED DATA TRANSMISSION RATE FOR A WIRELESS LINK | January 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18561737 | APPLYING MANAGEMENT CONSTRAINTS DURING NETWORK SLICE DESIGN | November 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18466195 | OPAQUE ROUTING ON OVERLAY NETWORKS: A STRUCTURED NEURAL NET BASED APPROACH | September 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18364457 | RACH BASED ON FMCW CHANNEL SOUNDING | August 2023 | August 2025 | Allow | 25 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18349934 | SCHEDULING TRANSMISSION METHOD AND APPARATUS | July 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18103040 | USING NETWORK WATERFALL DATA TO ASSESS THE QOE OF WEB-BASED APPLICATIONS | January 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17921295 | METHOD FOR ASSOCIATING ACTIONS FOR INTERNET OF THINGS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM | October 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17952069 | DATA PROCESSING METHOD AND DEVICE | September 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17877816 | BEACON AND THREAT INTELLIGENCE BASED APT DETECTION | July 2022 | January 2025 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17496062 | COT Indication Information Sending Method and Apparatus | October 2021 | February 2025 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13450633 | MIGRATING ACTIVE I/O CONNECTIONS WITH MIGRATING SERVERS AND CLIENTS | April 2012 | July 2014 | Allow | 26 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13038801 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GLOBALLY AND SECURELY ACCESSING UNIFIED INFORMATION IN A COMPUTER NETWORK | March 2011 | February 2016 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11821101 | Providing treatment-indicative feedback dependent on putative content treatment | June 2007 | July 2014 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner CHEEMA, UMAR.
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, 66.7% 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 CHEEMA, UMAR works in Art Unit 2458 and has examined 4 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 100.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 10000 months.
Examiner CHEEMA, UMAR's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 95% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by CHEEMA, UMAR receive 3.75 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 96% 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 CHEEMA, UMAR 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.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by CHEEMA, UMAR. 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, 37.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 85% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 75.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 64% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner shows above-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. The mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) provides an opportunity for reconsideration.
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 19% 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.