Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16973638 | Communication Method Implemented by a First Router of an Autonomous System Using an Interior Gateway Protocol | December 2020 | December 2023 | Allow | 36 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17110255 | METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIA FOR PROVIDING A UNIFIED INTERFACE CONFIGURED TO SUPPORT INFREQUENT DATA COMMUNICATIONS VIA A NETWORK EXPOSURE FUNCTION | December 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16948898 | REASSEMBLY OF SERVICE DATA UNITS FOR RADIO LINK CONTROL DUPLICATION | October 2020 | October 2023 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16982569 | TIME TRANSFER SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SATELLITE-INDEPENDENT, PHASE AND FREQUENCY SYNCHRONIZATION OVER TRADITIONAL IP CORE NETWORK WITHOUT FULL OR PARTIAL TIMING SUPPORT | September 2020 | March 2023 | Allow | 30 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17016658 | TECHNIQUES FOR CONFIGURING A TIME GAP FOR A PROBING PULSE SIGNAL | September 2020 | July 2023 | Allow | 34 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17009895 | Negative-Block ACK Based Wi-Fi MAC Protocol | September 2020 | January 2024 | Allow | 41 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17002051 | TRANSMISSION DEVICE, RECEPTION DEVICE, TRANSMISSION METHOD, AND RECEPTION METHOD | August 2020 | August 2023 | Allow | 36 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16969688 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR FALLBACK OPERATION FOR SEMI-STATIC HARQ-ACK CODEBOOK DETERMINATION | August 2020 | July 2023 | Allow | 35 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16988499 | METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING UPLINK SIGNAL AND COMMUNICATIONS APPARATUS | August 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 37 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16943427 | DEVICE BASED SMART NAT SELECTION | July 2020 | November 2023 | Allow | 39 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16770744 | INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM | June 2020 | June 2023 | Allow | 37 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16769375 | WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, MAIN BASE STATION, SECONDARY BASE STATION, AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATION METHOD | June 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 32 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15930177 | NETWORK FORENSIC SYSTEM AND METHOD | May 2020 | July 2023 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16650198 | OPTIMIZATION OF RESOURCE ALLOCATION BASED ON RECEIVED QUALITY OF EXPERIENCE INFORMATION | March 2020 | December 2023 | Abandon | 45 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16637714 | COMMUNICATION APPARATUS AND COMMUNICATION METHOD | February 2020 | November 2022 | Allow | 33 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16604602 | WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICE, NETWORK NODE, METHODS AND COMPUTER PROGRAMS | October 2019 | August 2023 | Abandon | 46 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16479093 | RETRANSMISSION FOR PUNCTURED SIGNALS | July 2019 | January 2023 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16475069 | METHOD FOR REPORTING MULTI-CONNECTION TRANSMISSION CAPABILITY, METHOD FOR CONFIGURING MULTI-CONNECTION TRANSMISSION MODE, METHOD FOR PREVENTING RETRANSMISSION OF DATA, UE AND BASE STATION | June 2019 | February 2023 | Allow | 44 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16177858 | PHYSICAL UPLINK CONTROL CHANNEL (PUCCH) RESOURCE ALLOCATION | November 2018 | November 2022 | Allow | 48 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16013373 | Method And Apparatus To Enhance Routing Protocols In Wireless Mesh Networks | June 2018 | March 2023 | Allow | 56 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14885273 | WI-FI CALLING QUALITY OF SERVICE ON TRUSTED WLAN NETWORKS | October 2015 | February 2018 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14743590 | ADAPTIVE WIRELESS FREQUENCY BAND SHARING | June 2015 | July 2017 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13735279 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MANAGING CONNECTION PATH FAILURE BETWEEN DATA CENTERS FOR CLOUD COMPUTING | January 2013 | December 2015 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12643713 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR BUNDLING AND CIPHERING DATA | December 2009 | January 2014 | Allow | 49 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12643672 | COMMUNICATION METHOD, COMMUNICATION APPARATUS, AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | December 2009 | November 2012 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12170640 | WIRELESS COMMUNICATION METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING DATA BIT RATES TO MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF RADIO LINKS | July 2008 | March 2014 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11918667 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR TRANSMITTING A MULTICAST STREAM OVER A DATA EXCHANGE NETWORK | November 2007 | December 2011 | Allow | 50 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 11870353 | UNIVERSAL BLOCKINESS CORRECTION | October 2007 | August 2013 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11673320 | COMMUNICATION DEVICE, COMMUNICATION METHOD, CONTROL METHOD FOR COMMUNICATION DEVICE, AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | February 2007 | August 2012 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11580860 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROCESSING DATA IN CONTROLLER AREA NETWORK | October 2006 | April 2010 | Allow | 42 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MIAN, OMER S.
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, 25.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable 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 shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner MIAN, OMER S works in Art Unit 2475 and has examined 30 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 93.3%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 38 months.
Examiner MIAN, OMER S's allowance rate of 93.3% places them in the 80% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by MIAN, OMER S receive 3.70 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 94% 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 MIAN, OMER S is 38 months. This places the examiner in the 29% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -7.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MIAN, OMER S. This interview benefit is in the 5% 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, 21.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 28% 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 27.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 39% 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 57.1% of appeals filed. This is in the 30% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.
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 22% 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.