Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18409406 | CAMERA MODULE | January 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18405396 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR E2 SETUP PROCEDURE | January 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 26 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18402390 | Systems and Methods for Enhancing Image Content Captured by a Machine Vision Camera | January 2024 | December 2025 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18540492 | OPTICAL LENS CHARACTERIZATION AND CALIBRATION | December 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 18 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18489860 | RADIO-FREQUENCY MODULE | October 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18278272 | BEAM MEASUREMENT METHOD, BEAM MEASUREMENT APPARATUS, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | August 2023 | September 2025 | Allow | 25 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18364930 | RESOURCE REALLOCATION IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS USING NETWORK PERFORMANCE MODELS | August 2023 | August 2025 | Allow | 25 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18274256 | MANAGING HANDOVER EXECUTION | July 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18268239 | CAPSULE ENDOSCOPE IMAGE THREE-DIMENSIONAL RECONSTRUCTION METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | June 2023 | September 2024 | Allow | 15 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17920391 | ITERATIVE OPTIMIZATION OF RESHAPING FUNCTIONS IN SINGLE-LAYER HDR IMAGE CODEC | October 2022 | April 2024 | Allow | 17 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17958200 | VIDEO DECODING METHOD, VIDEO ENCODING METHOD, AND RELATED APPARATUSES | September 2022 | October 2024 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17949032 | TECHNIQUES FOR DYNAMICALLY ADJUSTING RETRANSMISSION OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN A CONNECTED ISOCHRONOUS STREAM | September 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17798593 | METHODS FOR PERFORMING MEASUREMENTS UNDER UE POWER SAVING MODES | August 2022 | December 2025 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17760292 | USER SCHEDULING AND CODEBOOK ALLOCATION METHOD FOR MAXIMIZING SUM FREQUENCY EFFICIENCY IN NON-ORTHOGONAL MULTIPLE ACCESS SYSTEM | August 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17880609 | METHOD AND DEVICE IN NODES USED FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION | August 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17467787 | THEFT PREDICTION AND TRACKING SYSTEM | September 2021 | April 2025 | Abandon | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 15422456 | OPTIMAL CAMERA SELECTION IN ARRAY OF MONITORING CAMERAS | February 2017 | November 2017 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15391864 | MOTION ESTIMATION METHOD AND MOTION ESTIMATOR FOR ESTIMATING MOTION VECTOR OF BLOCK OF CURRENT FRAME | December 2016 | March 2019 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15221925 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OCCUPANCY MONITORING | July 2016 | May 2019 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15114301 | IMAGE ENCODING DEVICE AND METHOD, AND IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE AND METHOD FOR ENABLING BITSTREAM CONCATENATION | July 2016 | April 2019 | Allow | 32 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14895028 | MOVING PICTURE ENCODING IN WHICH BASE QUANTIZATION IS BASED ON CORRECTED MACROBLOCK COMPLEXITY | December 2015 | November 2018 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14953017 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR ENCODING AND DECODING A HDR PICTURE AND A LDR PICTURE | November 2015 | July 2018 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14884999 | IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEM,CONTROL METHOD FOR IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM FOR MIXED REALITY | October 2015 | November 2018 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14651466 | VIDEO CODING DEVICE USING QUANTIZING AN ORTHOGONAL TRANSFORM COEFFICIENT | June 2015 | February 2018 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14672418 | TEST SYSTEM AND TEST METHOD | March 2015 | April 2018 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14419461 | METHOD FOR MEASURING THE DEFLECTION OF A FUEL ELEMENT CAN FOR A FUEL ELEMENT OF A BOILING WATER REACTOR | February 2015 | May 2017 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14567600 | RATE CONTROL FOR PARALLEL VIDEO ENCODING | December 2014 | May 2018 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14564550 | METHOD OF ACQUIRING GAZE INFORMATION IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER USER WEARS VISION AID AND MOVES | December 2014 | September 2017 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14500189 | MARKING APPARATUS AND MARKING METHOD FOR DISPLAY PANEL | September 2014 | July 2017 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14240800 | DETECTING A BLOOD SAMPLE | February 2014 | September 2017 | Allow | 43 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 14124389 | SCALABLE VIDEO CODING PRIORITIZATION | December 2013 | July 2016 | Allow | 31 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14115093 | OPTIMAL CAMERA SELECTION IN ARRAY OF MONITORING CAMERAS | October 2013 | October 2016 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13928001 | WHITE TURBID STATE DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS | June 2013 | November 2015 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ABAZA, AYMAN A.
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.
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.
⚠ 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 ABAZA, AYMAN A works in Art Unit 2465 and has examined 18 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 94.4%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.
Examiner ABAZA, AYMAN A's allowance rate of 94.4% places them in the 83% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by ABAZA, AYMAN A receive 2.39 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 68% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by ABAZA, AYMAN A is 34 months. This places the examiner in the 43% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +12.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ABAZA, AYMAN A. This interview benefit is in the 49% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 46.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 96% 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 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 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'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.
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.