Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18435665 | Uplink Timing Synchronization Maintenance in Secondary Cell Group | February 2024 | July 2025 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18553562 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DATA COMMUNICATION AT A PRIMARY WIRELESS COMMUNICATION APPARATUS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN AUXILIARY WIRELESS COMMUNICATION APPARATUS | October 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18225514 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A VISUAL CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD OF A NETWORK | July 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18210725 | Apparatus and Method for Detecting PRACH Storm Attacks | June 2023 | July 2025 | Allow | 25 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18336162 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR UE POLICY UPDATE MANAGEMENT | June 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18247177 | SPOOFING PROTECTION FOR MOBILE DEVICE POSITIONING | March 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18187232 | MOBILE TERMINAL TEST SYSTEM AND MOBILE TERMINAL TEST METHOD | March 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18120760 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COLLECTING TELEMATICS DATA FROM TELEMATICS DEVICES | March 2023 | May 2025 | Allow | 26 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17922113 | System Information Design For Synchronization In Non-Terrestrial Network Communications | October 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17914960 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING COMMUNICATION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | September 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16691144 | WIRELESS SENSOR TRANSMISSION METHOD AND APPARATUS | November 2019 | May 2023 | Abandon | 42 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 15595535 | CONFIGURING WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS AND AN ADVERTISING EVENT ACCORDING TO MULTIPLE COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS | May 2017 | April 2021 | Abandon | 47 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 14563426 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SUPPORTING MISMATCH DETECTION | December 2014 | April 2015 | Abandon | 5 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14130724 | Apparatus and Method for Reactive Inter-Cell Interference Coordination | January 2014 | March 2016 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14082982 | APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR DYNAMICALLY REPORTING INTER-SYSTEM MEASUREMENT CAPABILITY IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION NETWORK | November 2013 | June 2016 | Abandon | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13595815 | FEMTOCELL CHANNEL ASSIGNMENT AND POWER CONTROL FOR IMPROVED FEMTOCELL COVERAGE AND EFFICIENT CELL SEARCH | August 2012 | November 2014 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13423743 | DUAL ANTENNA DISTRIBUTED FRONT-END RADIO | March 2012 | March 2015 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 13423721 | COMMUNICATION DEVICE, AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | March 2012 | May 2015 | Abandon | 38 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13403953 | MULTI-PROTOCOL SWITCHING CONTROL SYSTEM SUITABLE FOR CONTROLLING DIFFERENT ELECTRONIC DEVICES OF DIFFERENT PROTOCOLS | February 2012 | April 2015 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13362439 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING INTELLIGENT CODEC RATE ADAPTATION FOR WIRELESS USERS | January 2012 | January 2015 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12840902 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PEER-TO-PEER ENFORCEMENT | July 2010 | March 2012 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12747734 | METHOD OF DETECTING INCORRECT CELL IDENTITY IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS | June 2010 | January 2012 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12754790 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IN-BAND MODEM TO MODEM COMMUNICATION | April 2010 | February 2012 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11631497 | FREQUENCY QUALITY CRITERIA FOR INTER-FREQUENCY HANDOVER IN A TD-CDMA COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | February 2009 | January 2012 | Allow | 60 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12143607 | EFFECTIVE SYSTEM INFORMATION RECEPTION METHOD | June 2008 | January 2012 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10584136 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ROUTING TRAFFIC IN AD HOC NETWORKS | May 2007 | March 2012 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 11441714 | COMMUNICATION TERMINAL | May 2006 | December 2011 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11147854 | DATA PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING DATA IN A DATA PROCESSING APPARATUS | June 2005 | January 2012 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10891883 | METHODS OF PROVIDING CALLER IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION AND RELATED REGISTRIES AND RADIOTELEPHONE NETWORKS | July 2004 | April 2011 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10482003 | RECEIVER HAVING HIGH-FREQUENCY AMPLIFIER CIRCUIT PORTIONS INTEGRALLY FORMED ON A SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE | December 2003 | August 2006 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10481917 | RECEIVER AND COMPOSITE COMPONENT HAVING LOCAL OSCILLATOR COMPONENTS AND MIXING CIRCUIT INTEGRALLY FORMED ON SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE | December 2003 | August 2006 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner THIER, MICHAEL.
With a 33.3% 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.
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, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.
✓ 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 is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner THIER, MICHAEL works in Art Unit 2474 and has examined 21 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 52.4%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 36 months.
Examiner THIER, MICHAEL's allowance rate of 52.4% places them in the 14% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by THIER, MICHAEL receive 2.29 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 64% 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 THIER, MICHAEL is 36 months. This places the examiner in the 36% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +55.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by THIER, MICHAEL. This interview benefit is in the 95% 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.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 20.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 23% 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 30.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 43% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.
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 40.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 7% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 91% 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.