USPTO Examiner NAWAZ ASAD M - Art Unit 2463

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18647398SENDING GROUP MESSAGE TO TAGGED CONTACTSApril 2024January 2026Allow2110YesNo
18642029HEALTH MODEL FOR CLOUD SERVICE HEALTH MONITORINGApril 2024June 2025Allow1300YesNo
18697334CONFIGURATION METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR VIRTUAL NETWORK INTERFACE CARD RESOURCE, AND COMPUTER DEVICE AND MEDIUMMarch 2024May 2025Allow1400YesNo
18578678METHOD AND DEVICE FOR TRANSMITTING/RECEIVING DEMODULATION REFERENCE SIGNAL IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMJanuary 2024December 2025Allow2300YesNo
18263682POSITIONING REFERENCE SIGNAL CONFIGURATION FOR MEASUREMENT SHARING VIA SIDELINKJuly 2023August 2025Allow2500YesNo
18068850LOCAL 5G MONITORING SYSTEM AND MEASUREMENT DATA PROVIDING METHOD THEREOFDecember 2022February 2026Allow3820YesNo
17925637Methods and Apparatuses for Early Data Forwarding in Conditional Handover of a UE in Multi-ConnectivityNovember 2022February 2026Allow3910YesNo
17939770BEAM MANAGEMENT USING ENHANCED SYNCHRONIZATION SIGNAL BLOCK SIGNALINGSeptember 2022September 2025Allow3630NoNo
17593485NETWORK OPERATIONS TO RECEIVE USER CONSENT FOR EDGE COMPUTINGSeptember 2021April 2024Allow3130YesNo
12671454METHOD FOR SUPPORTING POST BROWSING IN MOVING RIGHTS OBJECT OF DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT AND TERMINAL THEREOFJanuary 2010December 2011Allow2210NoNo
12429748REGISTERING A COMMON INFORMATION MODEL PROVIDER TO A COMMON INFORMATION MODEL OBJECT MANAGERApril 2009February 2012Allow3420NoNo
12421435SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION DURING THE CONSOLIDATION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO A DATA SERVICEApril 2009February 2012Allow3410YesNo
12334820USE OF INFORMATION CHANNELS TO PROVIDE COMMUNICATIONS IN A VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTDecember 2008February 2012Allow3821YesNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner NAWAZ, ASAD M - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner NAWAZ, ASAD M works in Art Unit 2463 and has examined 5 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 34 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner NAWAZ, ASAD M'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.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by NAWAZ, ASAD M receive 1.80 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 41% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by NAWAZ, ASAD M is 34 months. This places the examiner in the 43% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by NAWAZ, ASAD M. 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 14% 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 50.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 75% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 2% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 16% 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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

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

    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.