Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18428944 | ISSUES MANAGEMENT KEY RISK INDICATORS | January 2024 | September 2024 | Allow | 7 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18544047 | DYNAMIC SCHEDULING OF DATA TRANSMISSION FROM INTERNET OF THINGS (IOT) DEVICES BASED ON DENSITY OF IOT DEVICES | December 2023 | September 2024 | Allow | 9 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18488407 | END-TO-END DISTRIBUTED TRACING WITH EXTERNAL TELEMETRY DATA | October 2023 | September 2024 | Allow | 11 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18003427 | SYSTEM FOR TRANSLATION-BASED REAL-TIME INCONSISTENCY DETECTION IN NETWORK FUNCTIONS VIRTUALIZATION (NFV) | December 2022 | July 2024 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18055090 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING DATA | November 2022 | October 2024 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17685877 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CAPTURING AUTHENTICATABLE DIGITAL MEDIA FILES ON CONNECTED MEDIA-CAPTURE DEVICES | March 2022 | October 2024 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17681276 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LINKING CRYPTOGRAPHY-BASED DIGITAL REPOSITORIES TO PERFORM BLOCKCHAIN OPERATIONS IN DECENTRALIZED APPLICATIONS | February 2022 | August 2024 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17561153 | CALCULATING AND REPORTING COLLABORATION SYSTEM RISKS | December 2021 | August 2024 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17455043 | ASSET MANAGEMENT WITH RESPECT TO A SHARED POOL OF CONFIGURABLE COMPUTING RESOURCES | November 2021 | September 2022 | Allow | 10 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17500845 | PROXY-CALL SESSION CONTROL FUNCTION (P-CSCF) RESTORATION | October 2021 | September 2023 | Allow | 23 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17030022 | COMPUTATION LOAD DISTRIBUTION | September 2020 | July 2024 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16854616 | TELEMETRY COLLECTION AND POLICY ENFORCEMENT USING ASSET TAGGING | April 2020 | March 2024 | Abandon | 47 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16576531 | DELIVERY PACING SYSTEMS AND METHODS | September 2019 | August 2024 | Allow | 59 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner VANG, MENG.
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 VANG, MENG works in Art Unit 2472 and has examined 6 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 83.3%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 46 months.
Examiner VANG, MENG's allowance rate of 83.3% places them in the 57% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by VANG, MENG receive 4.17 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 98% 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 VANG, MENG is 46 months. This places the examiner in the 11% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -20.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by VANG, MENG. This interview benefit is in the 1% 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.
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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 90% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 98% 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'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 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.