Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18403322 | DYNAMIC INTERACTIVE NETWORK SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING ONLINE SERVICE AND SOCIAL COMMUNITY FOR ENGAGING, LEARNING, AND TRAINING SKILLS FOR MENTAL HEALTH | January 2024 | May 2025 | Abandon | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18558713 | REMOTE DIRECT MEMORY ACCESS (RDMA) SUPPORT IN CELLULAR NETWORKS | November 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 18234319 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DYNAMIC USER INTERACTION FOR IMPROVING MENTAL HEALTH | August 2023 | May 2025 | Abandon | 21 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18275467 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DELAY MEASUREMENT IN FRONTHAUL NETWORK USING HARDWARE TIMESTAMPING | August 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18335535 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR MEASURING QUALITY AND PDU LOSS RATE IN MOBILE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM FOR XR SERVICE | June 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18296887 | PUCCH TRANSMISSIONS WITH MULTICAST HARQ-ACK INFORMATION | April 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 27 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18181391 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR UTILIZING MACHINE LEARNING MODELS TO DETERMINE RADIO ACCESS NETWORK ANTENNA PERFORMANCE IMPACT | March 2023 | May 2025 | Allow | 26 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17996408 | MANAGEMENT APPARATUS AND QUALITY CONTROL APPARATUS | October 2022 | August 2025 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17962343 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR RESOLVING TRANSMISSION CONFLICTS IN WIRELESS NETWORK | October 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17955932 | RANDOM ACCESS METHOD AND APPARATUS AND RESOURCE CONFIGURATION METHOD AND APPARATUS | September 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17953189 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR MANAGING CONTINUITY OF DATA FLOW IN 5G NETWORKS | September 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17825608 | Systems and Methods for Automatic Generation of Social Media Networks and Interactions | May 2022 | August 2025 | Allow | 39 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17711502 | SIMULATING NETWORK FLOW CONTROL | April 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 46 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17545730 | NETWORK ATTACHED MEMORY USING SELECTIVE RESOURCE MIGRATION | December 2021 | August 2025 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17309768 | CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK | June 2021 | July 2025 | Allow | 49 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17329637 | REMOTE TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICE | May 2021 | January 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner DOLLINGER, TONIA LYNN MEONSKE.
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 DOLLINGER, TONIA LYNN MEONSKE works in Art Unit 2459 and has examined 3 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 66.7%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 44 months.
Examiner DOLLINGER, TONIA LYNN MEONSKE's allowance rate of 66.7% places them in the 28% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by DOLLINGER, TONIA LYNN MEONSKE receive 2.67 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 78% 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 DOLLINGER, TONIA LYNN MEONSKE is 44 months. This places the examiner in the 14% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -50.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by DOLLINGER, TONIA LYNN MEONSKE. This interview benefit is in the 0% 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, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 38% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 16% 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'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.