Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17133444 | WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICE AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATION METHOD | December 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17127574 | SUPERPOSITION TRANSMISSION OF SIDELINK AND UPLINK | December 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17123066 | REPEATER BEACON SIGNAL FOR ENABLING INTER-CELL INTERFERENCE COORDINATION | December 2020 | April 2023 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17117365 | Apparatus for the configuration of a wireless radio connection and method of configuring a wireless radio connection | December 2020 | October 2023 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17112878 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MANAGING MIXED TRANSMISSION | December 2020 | March 2023 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17097495 | DYNAMIC PORT FORWARDING | November 2020 | August 2023 | Allow | 34 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17080113 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COEXISTANCE OF DEVICE-TO-DEVICE COMMUNICATIONS AND CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS IN MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM | October 2020 | August 2022 | Allow | 22 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17061303 | TECHNIQUES TO MANAGE INTEGRITY PROTECTION | October 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 28 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17028538 | QUASI CO-LOCATED ANTENNA PORTS FOR CHANNEL ESTIMATION | September 2020 | September 2022 | Allow | 24 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17015010 | WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM USING ONE OR MORE THROUGHPUT ENHANCEMENT TECHNIQUES | September 2020 | September 2023 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16970077 | SEGMENT CONCATENATION IN RADIO LINK CONTROL STATUS REPORTS | August 2020 | November 2022 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16968610 | WIRELESS BACKHAUL NETWORK, COMMUNICATION METHOD AND APPARATUS | August 2020 | October 2023 | Allow | 38 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16872869 | EMISSION OF A SIGNAL IN UNUSED RESOURCE UNITS TO INCREASE ENERGY DETECTION OF AN 802.11 CHANNEL | May 2020 | June 2023 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16841234 | CHANNEL ASSIGNMENT FOR WIRELESS ACCESS NETWORKS | April 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16608106 | USER TERMINAL AND RADIO COMMUNICATION METHOD | October 2019 | March 2023 | Allow | 40 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 16373307 | WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, BASE STATION, MOBILE STATION, AND PROCESSING METHOD | April 2019 | February 2022 | Allow | 34 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 15725890 | WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM, BASE STATION, MOBILE STATION, AND PROCESSING METHOD | October 2017 | January 2019 | Allow | 15 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14746402 | ADAPTIVE UPLINK/DOWNLINK TIMESLOT ASSIGNMENT IN A HYBRID WIRELESS TIME DIVISION MULTIPLE ACCESS/CODE DIVISION MULTIPLE ACCESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | June 2015 | January 2016 | Allow | 7 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14644467 | CONFERENCE TERMINAL CONTROL SYSTEM, CONFERENCE TERMINAL CONTROL DEVICE, AND CONFERENCE TERMINAL CONTROL METHOD | March 2015 | December 2016 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14337868 | ADAPTIVE UPLINK/DOWNLINK TIMESLOT ASSIGNMENT IN A HYBRID WIRELESS TIME DIVISION MULTIPLE ACCESS/CODE DIVISION MULTIPLE ACCESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | July 2014 | February 2015 | Allow | 7 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13959314 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COMPRESSING AND TRANSMITTING ULTRA HIGH SPEED DATA | August 2013 | July 2015 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13546942 | Method and User Equipment for Feeding Back Multi-Cell Channel State Information | July 2012 | February 2014 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12915765 | DONOR EVOLVED NODEB, RELAY NODE AND COMMUNICATION METHOD THEREOF | October 2010 | September 2013 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12626527 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTENTION-BASED CHANNEL ACCESS FOR PEER-TO-PEER CONNECTION IN WIRELESS NETWORKS | November 2009 | March 2014 | Allow | 51 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12442291 | OFDMA COMMUNICATION SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATION METHOD | July 2009 | November 2013 | Allow | 56 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12348637 | ADAPTIVE UPLINK/DOWNLINK TIMESLOT ASSIGNMENT IN A HYBRID WIRELESS TIME DIVISION MULTIPLE ACCESS/CODE DIVISION MULTIPLE ACCESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | January 2009 | March 2014 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12143064 | DATA VERIFICATION USING SIGNATURE | June 2008 | September 2011 | Allow | 38 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 11846128 | METHOD FOR REDUCING DETERIORATION IN RECEIVING PERFORMANCE AND A RADIO APPARATUS USING THE METHOD | August 2007 | March 2011 | Allow | 43 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11821260 | REGULATING NETWORK SERVICE LEVELS PROVIDED TO COMMUNICATION TERMINALS THROUGH A LAN ACCESS POINT | June 2007 | February 2012 | Allow | 56 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11584944 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COMPRESSING AND TRANSMITTING ULTRA HIGH SPEED DATA | October 2006 | January 2013 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner PATEL, JAY P.
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 PATEL, JAY P works in Art Unit 2475 and has examined 30 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 100.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.
Examiner PATEL, JAY P's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 94% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by PATEL, JAY P receive 2.93 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 81% 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 PATEL, JAY P 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 +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by PATEL, JAY P. This interview benefit is in the 14% 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, 29.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 59% 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.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 44.4% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 69% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 95% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
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, 46.2% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 38% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 3.3% of allowed cases (in the 81% 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 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.