Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18759420 | ROUTE GENERATION METHOD AND DEVICE | June 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18739420 | DYNAMIC MULTI-CLOUD NETWORK TRAFFIC FLOW MONITORING | June 2024 | September 2025 | Allow | 15 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18713360 | INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM RECEIVING AND SENDING FILE WITH TIMESTAMP INCLUDING HASH VALUE | May 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18639963 | AMPLIFIED COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE USING DISTRIBUTED PARALLEL RANKING WITH OVERLAPPING SUBPOPULATIONS AND PROBABILISTIC AGGREGATIONS | April 2024 | December 2025 | Abandon | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18532039 | DYNAMICALLY MANAGING REMOTE CONFERENCING WHILE DRIVING | December 2023 | July 2025 | Abandon | 19 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 18564717 | First Node, Second Node, and Methods Performed Thereby for Handling Traffic From the Second Node | November 2023 | February 2026 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18383159 | ARTIFICIALLY INTELLIGENT NOTIFICATION MANAGER | October 2023 | September 2025 | Allow | 22 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18380980 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR MANAGING MULTIPATH COMMUNICATION | October 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 28 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18233544 | COMMUNICATION DEVICE, COMMUNICATION METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | August 2023 | November 2025 | Abandon | 27 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18345300 | PROVIDING VIDEO STREAMS FOR PRESENTATION IN A USER INTERFACE OF A VIDEO CONFERENCE BASED ON A USER PRIORITY LIST | June 2023 | August 2025 | Allow | 25 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18200299 | MEDIA DEVICE SIMULATOR | May 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 30 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18133910 | Time-Based Computer Control | April 2023 | December 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17973955 | CHAT BRIDGING IN VIDEO CONFERENCES | October 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 31 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17870387 | Automated System And Method For Extracting And Adapting System Configurationss | July 2022 | November 2025 | Allow | 40 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17713115 | DISTRIBUTED SYSTEM OF HOME DEVICE CONTROLLERS | April 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 39 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17617029 | DYNAMIC MODIFICATION OF FUNCTIONALITY OF A REAL-TIME COMMUNICATIONS SESSION | December 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 47 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17503110 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR HIERARCHICAL ORGANIZATION OF SOFTWARE DEFINED PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR INDUSTRIAL PROCESS PLANTS | October 2021 | November 2025 | Allow | 49 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 15813063 | SYSTEM, METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR LINKING DEVICES FOR COORDINATED OPERATION | November 2017 | May 2021 | Abandon | 42 | 13 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 14306379 | Intelligent Discovery Of Network Information From Multiple Information Gathering Agents | June 2014 | September 2015 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14052985 | SELECTING A TARGET SERVER FOR A WORKLOAD WITH A LOWEST ADJUSTED COST BASED ON COMPONENT VALUES | October 2013 | July 2016 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13708029 | MANAGING INVENTORY DATA FOR COMPONENTS OF A SERVER SYSTEM | December 2012 | May 2014 | Allow | 17 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13177704 | MANAGING INVENTORY DATA FOR COMPONENTS OF A SERVER SYSTEM | July 2011 | December 2014 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13153172 | INTELLIGENT DISCOVERY OF NETWORK INFORMATION FROM MULTIPLE INFORMATION GATHERING AGENTS | June 2011 | February 2014 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12913975 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR REPRODUCING MULTIMEDIA DATA BY CONTROLLING REPRODUCING SPEED | October 2010 | June 2013 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12550554 | Distributed Video Surveillance Storage Cost Reduction Using Statistical Multiplexing Principle | August 2009 | September 2014 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12546351 | ASSOCIATING PROBLEM TICKETS BASED ON AN INTEGRATED NETWORK AND CUSTOMER DATABASE | August 2009 | January 2013 | Allow | 41 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12291890 | HIGH RESOLUTION DIGITAL VIDEO COLPOSCOPE WITH BUILT-IN POLARIZED LED ILLUMINATION AND COMPUTERIZED CLINICAL DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | November 2008 | June 2012 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12298170 | STEREOPROJECTION SYSTEM | October 2008 | October 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 12021873 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR THROTTLING HOST THROUGHPUT | January 2008 | October 2010 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11953595 | DISTRIBUTED OBJECT-ORIENTED APPLIANCE CONTROL SYSTEM | December 2007 | February 2013 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11873691 | METHODS, APPARATUS AND TECHNIQUES FOR SUSPENDING, RESUMING, AND SHARING SESSIONS USING OBJECT SERIALIZATION | October 2007 | October 2012 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11772064 | TRAFFIC SIGNAL WITH INTEGRATED SENSORS | June 2007 | February 2013 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11722391 | CONCURRENT FLASHING OF DATA PROCESSING UNITS IN HIERARCHICAL NETWORKS | June 2007 | June 2014 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11688474 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING MOVING SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS | March 2007 | June 2015 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11725084 | CUSTOMER TRAFFIC FORWARDING CONTINUES WHILE CONTROL PLANE IS RESET | March 2007 | May 2013 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11537476 | INFRASTRUCTURE TO DISSEMINATE QUERIES AND PROVIDE QUERY RESULTS | September 2006 | October 2012 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11485077 | OUTPUT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ENABLING PRINTING VIA WIRELESS DEVICES | July 2006 | May 2011 | Allow | 58 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10523348 | RETRY COMMUNICATION CONTROL METHOD AND SYSTEM | September 2005 | November 2013 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 2 | Yes | No |
| 11173469 | SYSTEM AND METHOD TO ESTABLISH A PEER-TO-PEER IT BACKBONE | June 2005 | May 2011 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 09942834 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING A CONFIGURATION SCHEMA | August 2001 | June 2012 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner COONEY, ADAM A.
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, 37.5% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.
✓ 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 COONEY, ADAM A works in Art Unit 2458 and has examined 25 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 92.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 58 months.
Examiner COONEY, ADAM A's allowance rate of 92.0% places them in the 77% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by COONEY, ADAM A receive 2.96 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 86% 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 COONEY, ADAM A is 58 months. This places the examiner in the 1% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +33.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by COONEY, ADAM A. This interview benefit is in the 81% 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, 28.9% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 53% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 45.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 69% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 28.6% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 31% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show below-average success with this examiner. Consider whether your arguments are strong enough to warrant a PAC request.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 80.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 72% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 50.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 160.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 97% 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 4.0% of allowed cases (in the 83% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
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.