USPTO Examiner DONABED NINOS - Art Unit 2468

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18750203CONFIGURING A GENERATIVE MACHINE LEARNING MODEL USING A SYNTACTIC INTERFACEJune 2024September 2024Allow300YesNo
18399786FIREWALL DRIFT MONITORING AND DETECTIONDecember 2023September 2024Allow800YesNo
18529610EMAIL FORWARDING METHOD AND APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUMDecember 2023August 2024Allow900YesNo
18516709SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OMNICHANNEL TEXT - BASED INTERACTION TRANSFERNovember 2023August 2024Allow800YesNo
18493514EXPLOITING STRUCTURE IN ENVIRONMENT SENSOR DYNAMICS FOR REAL-TIME MAXIMIZATION OF INFORMATION GAINOctober 2023June 2024Allow800YesNo
18358919MULTIMODAL NAMED ENTITY RECOGNITIONJuly 2023July 2024Allow1210YesNo
18110859AUTOMATICALLY INCREMENTED READ-WATERMARKFebruary 2023July 2024Allow1710YesNo
18167419High-Speed Packet FilteringFebruary 2023September 2024Allow1920YesNo
18159118WEB PAGE SPECTROSCOPYJanuary 2023July 2024Allow1720YesNo
18090666SECURING ATS FROM ROGUE DEVICES FOR CONFIDENTIAL COMPUTINGDecember 2022September 2024Allow2100YesNo
18062860DECISION OPTIMIZATION MECHANISM FOR DEVICE CLASSIFICATIONDecember 2022August 2024Allow2110YesNo
18060091DEVICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, DEVICE, DEVICE MANAGEMENT METHOD, AND MEDIUMNovember 2022July 2024Allow2020YesNo
17980885Li-Fi-Based Location AuthenticationNovember 2022September 2024Allow2200YesNo
17865814SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TEXT-BASED DELIVERY OF SALES PROMOTIONS WITH DEFERRED TEXT-TO-CALL INTERACTIONSJuly 2022September 2024Allow2620YesNo
17713249UNIVERSAL SERIAL BUS (USB) PORT CONTROLApril 2022September 2024Allow3000YesNo
17646651SECURITY PROFILE MANAGEMENT FOR MULTI-CLOUD AGENT REGISTRATION WITH MULTI-TENANT, MULTI-CELL SERVICEDecember 2021July 2024Allow3110YesNo
17409394SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR VOICE SERVICE IN AN EVOLVED PACKET SYSTEMAugust 2021February 2025Abandon4220NoNo
17391095UNIFIED END USER NOTIFICATION PLATFORMAugust 2021September 2024Allow3760YesNo
17153561MODEL COUNTERFACTUAL SCENARIOS OF SLA VIOLATIONS ALONG NETWORK PATHSJanuary 2021February 2025Abandon4940YesNo
16158972Opportunistic Crowd-Based Service PlatformOctober 2018January 2020Allow1510NoNo
16108576NETWORK MESSAGING FOR PAIRED DEVICESAugust 2018February 2020Allow1710YesNo
15802497Exercising Security Control Point (SCP) capabilities on live systems based on internal validation processingNovember 2017November 2019Allow2410YesNo
15567599EMBEDDING INFORMATION IN AN AUDIO STREAM FOR CONNECTIVITYOctober 2017August 2019Allow2210YesNo
15403074FORMING NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS FROM DISPERSE CLOUD PROVIDERSJanuary 2017March 2019Allow2620YesNo
14926850LOCAL PROCESSING APPARATUS AND DATA TRANSCEIVING METHOD THEREOFOctober 2015August 2017Allow2110YesNo
14795049WIRELESS CHARGING SMART-GEM JEWELRY SYSTEM & ASSOCIATED CLOUD SERVERJuly 2015May 2018Allow3430YesNo
14788185IDENTIFICATION OF COLLABORATING AND GATHERING ENTITIESJune 2015June 2018Allow3640YesNo
14611869ESTIMATING LATENCY OF AN APPLICATIONFebruary 2015November 2016Allow2210YesNo
14554235CLUSTERING REQUESTS AND PRIORITIZING WORKMANAGER THREADS BASED ON RESOURCE PERFORMANCE AND/OR AVAILABILITYNovember 2014September 2018Allow4520YesNo
14541817COMMUNICATING MULTIMEDIA DATANovember 2014July 2016Allow2000YesNo
14535711BACKUP MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND BACKUP MANAGEMENT METHODNovember 2014December 2016Allow2510YesNo
14270398CLUSTERING REQUESTS AND PRIORITIZING WORKMANAGER THREADS BASED ON RESOURCE PERFORMANCE AND/OR AVAILABILITYMay 2014September 2018Allow5220YesNo
14227489SYSTEM, METHOD OF DISCLOSING INFORMATION, AND APPARATUSMarch 2014September 2016Allow2910YesNo
14187706MESSAGE NOTIFYING DEVICE, CONTROL METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM STORING CONTROL PROGRAMFebruary 2014February 2016Allow2310YesNo
13639506PROCESSING CONTENT IN A PLURALITY OF LANGUAGESOctober 2012August 2014Allow2210YesNo
13622187MANAGING POOLED VPN PROXY SERVERS BY A CENTRAL SERVERSeptember 2012May 2016Allow4320YesNo
13475655APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR OPTIMIZING SCHEDULED OPERATIONS IN HYBRID NETWORK ENVIRONMENTSMay 2012November 2014Allow3010YesNo
13441216METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INFORMATION EXCHANGE UTILIZING AN ASYNCHRONOUS PERSISTENT STORE PROTOCOLApril 2012March 2016Allow4810YesNo
13371424DIGITAL MEDIA AND SOCIAL NETWORKING SYSTEM AND METHODFebruary 2012September 2015Allow4330YesNo
13389451METHOD, APPARATUS, AND PROGRAM FOR USABILITY ANALYSIS OF WEB APPLICATIONSFebruary 2012September 2014Allow3120YesNo
13308131METHODS AND APPARATUS TO ADJUST RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN A DISTRIBUTIVE COMPUTING NETWORKNovember 2011April 2014Allow2920YesNo
13175977TECHNIQUES FOR ENFORCING DATA SHARING POLICIES ON A COLLABORATION PLATFORMJuly 2011August 2014Allow3830YesNo
13174155EMAIL QUESTION OBJECT OWNERSHIP AND STATUS TRACKINGJune 2011July 2014Allow3620YesNo
13161117ROUTING PROXY FOR RESOURCE REQUESTS AND RESOURCESJune 2011February 2013Allow2010YesNo
13159953PROVIDING ACCESS TO SHARED STATE DATAJune 2011May 2014Allow3520YesNo
13158378SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SECURE SOCIAL NETWORKINGJune 2011June 2013Allow2410YesNo
13150932SERVER AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING DEVICE MANAGEMENT SERVICE AND DEVICE RECEIVING THE DEVICE MANAGEMENT SERVICEJune 2011April 2016Allow5960YesNo
13091993SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING A WEB-BASED OPERATING SYSTEMApril 2011March 2013Allow2310YesNo
12791202DIGITAL CONTENT BUNDLEJune 2010April 2015Allow5840YesNo
12787079MAIL RELAY SERVERMay 2010August 2013Allow3910YesNo
12773302SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CAPTURING ELECTRONIC MESSAGESMay 2010August 2014Allow5250YesNo
12651907REAL-TIME OPTICAL FLOW SENSOR DESIGN AND ITS APPLICATION TO OBSTACLE DETECTIONJanuary 2010April 2016Allow6041YesNo
12581623APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MANAGING ADVERTISEMENT APPLICATIONOctober 2009March 2016Allow6061YesYes
12580033METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR OBTAINING CONTENT WITH REDUCED ACCESS TIMESOctober 2009October 2015Allow6050YesNo
12227961SUPPORT FOR INTERACTIVE PLAYBACK DEVICES FOR PERFORMANCE AWARE PEER-TO-PEER CONTENT-ON DEMANDDecember 2008September 2013Allow5840YesNo
12265360SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DECENTRALIZED JOB SCHEDULING AND DISTRIBUTED EXECUTION IN A NETWORK OF MULTIFUNCTION DEVICESNovember 2008November 2013Allow6020YesNo
11968984DELIVERY SYSTEM AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTJanuary 2008August 2011Allow4340YesNo
11936631SMALL FORM FACTOR INTERFACE MODULENovember 2007March 2014Allow6020NoYes
11823875IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEM, AND FILTER SETTING METHODJune 2007March 2014Allow6040YesNo
11670369SYNCHRONIZATION FRAMEWORK FOR OCCASIONALLY CONNECTED APPLICATIONSFebruary 2007December 2010Allow4730YesNo
11537444ENGINE FOR PROCESSING CONTENT RULES ASSOCIATED WITH LOCATIONS IN A PAGESeptember 2006March 2014Abandon6060YesNo
11424230RECURSIVE DNS NAMESERVERJune 2006July 2013Allow6040YesNo
10951982METHOD FOR PROVIDING A CLIP FOR VIEWING AT A REMOTE DEVICESeptember 2004November 2011Allow6080YesNo
10898633DYNAMIC, NON-INTRUSIVE PERSONALIZATION OF WEB SERVICESJuly 2004August 2014Abandon6050YesYes
10886756SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HIGH-PERFORMANCE PROFILING OF APPLICATION EVENTSJuly 2004March 2011Allow6050YesNo
10876360METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IMPROVED IN-LINE MANAGEMENT OF AN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY NETWORKJune 2004May 2011Allow6050YesNo
10872119FLEXIBLE CONTEXT MANAGEMENT FOR ENUMERATION SESSIONS USING CONTEXT EXCHANGEJune 2004June 2009Allow6020YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner DONABED, NINOS.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
2
Examiner Affirmed
1
(50.0%)
Examiner Reversed
1
(50.0%)
Reversal Percentile
72.2%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 50.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is above the USPTO average, indicating that appeals have better success here than typical.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
5
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(20.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
4
(80.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
22.0%
Lower than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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, 20.0% 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.

Strategic Recommendations

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 shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner DONABED, NINOS - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner DONABED, NINOS works in Art Unit 2468 and has examined 66 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 93.9%, 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 DONABED, NINOS's allowance rate of 93.9% places them in the 82% 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 DONABED, NINOS receive 2.32 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 79% 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by DONABED, NINOS is 34 months. This places the examiner in the 23% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +28.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by DONABED, NINOS. This interview benefit is in the 79% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 30.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 51% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 16.1% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 11% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 100.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 70% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. If you have strong arguments, a PAC request may result in favorable reconsideration.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 60.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 30% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 33.3% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 96% 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 Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 4.5% of allowed cases (in the 88% 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 18% 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:

  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.
  • Examiner cooperation: This examiner frequently makes examiner's amendments to place applications in condition for allowance. If you are close to allowance, the examiner may help finalize the claims.

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.