Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16098975 | USER TERMINAL AND RADIO COMMUNICATION METHOD | November 2018 | January 2021 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16180708 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR JOINING CENTRALIZED CLUSTER | November 2018 | June 2019 | Abandon | 7 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16059031 | COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOL FOR DATA TRANSMISSION | August 2018 | May 2020 | Abandon | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15324329 | ASYMMETRIC COMMUNICATION | January 2017 | October 2019 | Abandon | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15346290 | BASE STATION APPARATUS AND SYSTEM FOR SWITCHING BEARER USED FOR COMMUNICATION OF TERMINAL APPARATUS | November 2016 | October 2019 | Abandon | 35 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15345720 | Robust Mobility Measurements and Inter-Cell Coordination in MMwave Small Cell | November 2016 | August 2019 | Abandon | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15343880 | DATA PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS | November 2016 | August 2019 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15124676 | Method and Apparatus for Channel State Information Measurement | September 2016 | August 2020 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 14780060 | Mechanism for Providing Communication Resources for Random Access of a User Device | September 2015 | August 2017 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14777497 | NETWORK DEVICE ARCHITECTURE ADJUSTMENTS | September 2015 | July 2017 | Abandon | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14648436 | BASE STATION DEVICE, TERMINAL DEVICE, COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, TRANSMISSION METHOD, RECEPTION METHOD, COMMUNICATION METHOD AND INTEGRATED CIRCUIT | May 2015 | November 2017 | Abandon | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14648281 | MTC RACH PROCEDURE | May 2015 | June 2017 | Abandon | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14634602 | PROVIDING CONTEXT INFORMATION RELATING TO MEDIA CONTENT THAT IS BEING PRESENTED | February 2015 | May 2017 | Abandon | 27 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13962902 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF IMPROVING STANDBY TIME IN M2M DEVICES | August 2013 | September 2017 | Abandon | 49 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13766347 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ENHANCED APPLICATION COEXISTENCE ON AN ACCESS TERMINAL IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | February 2013 | May 2017 | Abandon | 51 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13183115 | METHOD OF SPACE DIVISION MULTIPLE ACCESS COMMUNICATION USING USER COOPERATION AND SYSTEM OF ENABLING THE METHOD | July 2011 | May 2017 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13157997 | REDIRECT CHECKING IN A NETWORK DEVICE | June 2011 | December 2013 | Abandon | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13041068 | METHOD AND SYSTEM OF OPERATING A MULTI-USER SYSTEM | March 2011 | September 2013 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12376938 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ROUTING A PACKET IN MOBILE IP SYSTEM | November 2009 | September 2013 | Abandon | 56 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12003308 | Solution for attach peak | December 2007 | January 2014 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11769744 | DATA STORAGE SYSTEM HAVING PLURAL DATA PIPES | June 2007 | March 2011 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11568944 | METHODS FOR INCREASED TOLERANCE AGAINST PACKET REORDERING FOR THE SECURE REFERENCE PRINCIPLE IN ROBUST HEADER COMPRESSION | November 2006 | March 2011 | Allow | 53 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11546178 | SYSTEM, METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR AN OFFLOAD ENGINE WITH DMA CAPABILITIES | October 2006 | March 2011 | Allow | 54 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11429516 | NETWORK ELEMENT DISCOVERY USING A NETWORK ROUTING PROTOCOL | May 2006 | March 2011 | Allow | 59 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner PHILLIPS, HASSAN A.
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.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner PHILLIPS, HASSAN A works in Art Unit 2467 and has examined 24 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 16.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.
Examiner PHILLIPS, HASSAN A's allowance rate of 16.7% places them in the 2% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by PHILLIPS, HASSAN A receive 2.33 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 62% 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 PHILLIPS, HASSAN 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 +22.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by PHILLIPS, HASSAN A. This interview benefit is in the 66% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 20.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 24% 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.
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 2% 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.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 8% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 3% 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's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 12.5% of allowed cases (in the 95% 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 21% 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.