Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16795981 | Dynamic Threat Actionability Determination and Control System | February 2020 | October 2024 | Abandon | 56 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16711183 | ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS OF ELECTRONIC TERMINALS AND SERVERS FOR SECURING INFORMATION INTEGRITY IN THE DISTRIBUTED TECHNOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT AND METHODS OF USING THEREOF | December 2019 | March 2020 | Abandon | 4 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16702002 | DEVICE SUCH AS A CONNECTED OBJECT PROVIDED WITH MEANS FOR CHECKING THE EXECUTION OF A PROGRAM EXECUTED BY THE DEVICE | December 2019 | February 2022 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16685289 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ADAPTIVE SECURITY IN CLOUD-BASED SERVICES | November 2019 | September 2021 | Abandon | 22 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16584889 | COMMUNICATION METHOD, APPARATUS, AND SYSTEM | September 2019 | August 2022 | Abandon | 35 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16042832 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS BY A VEHICLE | July 2018 | December 2021 | Abandon | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15935646 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR POST-AUTHENTICATION USER VERIFICATION BASED ON USER INTERACTIONS | March 2018 | November 2022 | Abandon | 55 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15913811 | Virtual Identity Credential Issuance and Verification Using Physical and Virtual Means | March 2018 | November 2022 | Abandon | 56 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15575533 | DATA ENCRYPTION APPARATUS AND METHOD, AND DATA DECRYPTION APPARATUS AND METHOD | November 2017 | November 2021 | Abandon | 48 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 15537550 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR SENDING AND VERIFYING A SIGNATURE | June 2017 | November 2019 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15439764 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING ACCESS TO POSITION INFORMATION | February 2017 | December 2019 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15410101 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF PREVENTING INFECTION OR DATA LEAKAGE FROM CONTACT WITH A MALICIOUS HOST SYSTEM | January 2017 | June 2019 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15397635 | DYNAMIC SECURITY REPORT GENERATOR | January 2017 | December 2019 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15222717 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT | July 2016 | February 2019 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15199325 | SECURE INTERFACE ISOLATION | June 2016 | March 2020 | Abandon | 45 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14876553 | RICH METADATA-BASED NETWORK SECURITY MONITORING AND ANALYSIS | October 2015 | May 2018 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14745617 | USER-MANAGED SECURITY FOR DISPERSED NETWORK DATA STORAGE | June 2015 | January 2018 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14743836 | SLOTTED MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL FOR POWERLINE COMMUNICATION NETWORKS | June 2015 | April 2018 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14668352 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO ACCESS-CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS | March 2015 | December 2015 | Allow | 9 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14639519 | PUBLISHING CONTENT PENDING FINAL APPROVAL | March 2015 | May 2017 | Abandon | 27 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14618700 | SYSTEM, METHOD AND ARCHITECTURE FOR PROVIDING INTEGRATED APPLICATIONS | February 2015 | March 2017 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14570380 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTHORIZATION | December 2014 | June 2017 | Abandon | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14534469 | Methods And Systems For Providing Controlled Access To The Internet | November 2014 | May 2018 | Abandon | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14529657 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DISPLAYING CONTENT INCLUDING SECURITY INFORMATION | October 2014 | March 2018 | Abandon | 41 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14508355 | DISTRIBUTING SECRET KEYS FOR MANAGING ACCESS TO ECUS | October 2014 | March 2018 | Abandon | 41 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 14477607 | MULTI-LAYER AUTHENTICATION | September 2014 | June 2018 | Abandon | 45 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14327949 | PUBLISHING CONTENT PENDING FINAL APPROVAL | July 2014 | May 2017 | Abandon | 35 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14327596 | System, Method and Process for Mitigating Advanced and Targeted Attacks with Authentication Error Injection | July 2014 | March 2017 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14352726 | DRIVER RELATED DATA STORAGE SYSTEM AND METHOD | April 2014 | March 2016 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14186460 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR BLOCKING TRANSMISSION OF DATA ON A MOBILE DEVICE | February 2014 | November 2015 | Abandon | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13634721 | RIGHTS MANAGED DISTRIBUTABLE SOFTWARE | September 2012 | October 2014 | Abandon | 25 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12531728 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IDENTIFICATION, PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF WEB-SITES DEFACEMENT ATTACKS | September 2009 | January 2012 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12399458 | USER ACCESS METHOD AND SYSTEM | March 2009 | May 2012 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12253344 | Natural Visualization And Routing Of Digital Signatures | October 2008 | October 2017 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12016320 | Apparatus and Method for Secure Updating of a Vulnerable System over a Network | January 2008 | August 2018 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11978351 | Digital readout method and apparatus | October 2007 | May 2012 | Abandon | 54 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11854841 | Security Policy Validation For Web Services | September 2007 | May 2018 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11840124 | NETWORK SECURITY AND FRAUD DETECTION SYSTEM AND METHOD | August 2007 | October 2011 | Abandon | 50 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 11474106 | Protecting social security numbers from identity theft | June 2006 | May 2012 | Abandon | 60 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11433232 | Method to prevent power dissipation attacks on a cryptographic algorithm by implementing a random transformation step | May 2006 | June 2012 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11004742 | Runtime adaptable security processor | December 2004 | October 2011 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KIM, JUNG W.
With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.
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.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner KIM, JUNG W works in Art Unit 2494 and has examined 41 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 2.4%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 35 months.
Examiner KIM, JUNG W's allowance rate of 2.4% places them in the 1% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by KIM, JUNG W receive 2.61 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 73% 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 KIM, JUNG W is 35 months. This places the examiner in the 40% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +9.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KIM, JUNG W. This interview benefit is in the 40% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 1% 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 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 2% 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 9% 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 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 1% 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 17% 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 23% 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.