Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18728535 | A CYBER-ATTACK DETECTION AND PREVENTION SYSTEM | July 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18750135 | FACILITATING SECURITY VERIFICATION OF SYSTEM DESIGNS USING ADVERSARIAL MACHINE LEARNING | June 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18423534 | GENERATING TEST DATA | January 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18312936 | HOMOMORPHIC ENCRYPTION OPERATOR, STORAGE DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME, AND LEVEL CONFIGURATION METHOD THEREOF | May 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18086435 | Effectively In-Place Encryption System For Encrypting System/Root/Operating System (OS) Partitions And User Data Partitions | December 2022 | September 2025 | Allow | 33 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18066207 | PROCESSOR AND MULTI-CORE PROCESSOR | December 2022 | March 2026 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18064522 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ESTABLISHING END-TO-END SECURITY IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | December 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 50 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17984047 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SCORING SECURITY ALERTS INCORPORATING ANOMALY AND THREAT SCORES | November 2022 | February 2025 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17912626 | IDENTIFYING DYNAMIC IP ADDRESS CYBERATTACKS | September 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17943209 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING SERVICES WITH A BLOCKCHAIN SYSTEM | September 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17821965 | SMART BUILDING ANALYTICS NETWORK AND PLATFORM | August 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17888328 | Machine-Learning Augmented Access Management System | August 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17880851 | KEY OBTAINING METHOD AND APPARATUS | August 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17873384 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING ANONYMIZED PATIENT DATASETS | July 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17811107 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GRANTING ACCOUNT ACCESS TO A GUEST CONTACT | July 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17856964 | DISTRIBUTED BIOMETRIC IDENTITY SYSTEM ENROLLMENT WITH LIVE CONFIRMATION | July 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17788159 | DIGITAL WATERMARKING APPARATUS, DIGITAL WATERMARK EXTRACTION APPARATUS, DIGITAL WATERMARKING METHOD, DIGITAL WATERMARK EXTRACTION METHOD AND PROGRAM | June 2022 | December 2024 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17832550 | DECENTRALIZED NETWORK SECURITY | June 2022 | October 2024 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17805285 | DATA CLUSTER MANAGEMENT | June 2022 | April 2025 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17777276 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SELECTIVE ACCESS OF A DIGITAL CONTENT | May 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17661839 | Aggregating Permissions Across Multiple Platforms with Co-Signers | May 2022 | August 2024 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17735896 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR LOCATING DGA COMPROMISED IP ADDRESSES | May 2022 | July 2024 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17710474 | SECURE MONITORS FOR MEMORY PAGE PROTECTION | March 2022 | August 2025 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17708093 | AUTHENTICATION OF A DEVICE BY A CRYPTOGRAPHIC PROCESS | March 2022 | July 2024 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17708225 | LIMITING ACCESS OF A USER DEVICE TO A WEBSITE | March 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17701299 | DISTRIBUTED HIERARCHICAL AUTHENTICATION OF SYSTEM COMPONENT IDENTITIES | March 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17682174 | DISALLOWING READS ON FILES ASSOCIATED WITH COMPROMISED DATA ENCRYPTION KEYS | February 2022 | December 2024 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17676275 | Agent prevention augmentation based on organizational learning | February 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 47 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17673695 | TOPOLOGY-BASED EVENT SUPPRESSION | February 2022 | October 2024 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17635400 | METHODS, APPARATUS AND MACHINE-READABLE MEDIA RELATING TO MACHINE-LEARNING IN A COMMUNICATION NETWORK | February 2022 | July 2024 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17649547 | Protecting Application Private Keys with Remote and Local Security Controllers | January 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17649499 | SECURE DATA MIGRATION | January 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17649546 | Protecting Application Private Keys Using MPC Techniques | January 2022 | March 2026 | Abandon | 50 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17646696 | EXPONENTIALLY SMOOTHED CATEGORICAL ENCODING TO CONTROL ACCESS TO A NETWORK RESOURCE | December 2021 | March 2025 | Allow | 39 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17546819 | Adaptive Online Services Access Control | December 2021 | January 2026 | Abandon | 49 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17543593 | TESTING FOR UNCHANGED PASSWORDS IN IOT DEVICES | December 2021 | November 2024 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17610084 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD AND PROGRAM FOR ANONYMIZING DATA | November 2021 | April 2024 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17515826 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATED CHANGE REVIEW FOR ENHANCED NETWORK AND DATA SECURITY | November 2021 | March 2025 | Allow | 41 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MOLES, JAMES P.
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 MOLES, JAMES P works in Art Unit 2494 and has examined 5 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 80.0%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 39 months.
Examiner MOLES, JAMES P's allowance rate of 80.0% places them in the 49% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by MOLES, JAMES P receive 2.60 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 76% 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 MOLES, JAMES P is 39 months. This places the examiner in the 27% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -25.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MOLES, JAMES P. 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, 37.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 85% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.
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 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, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 2% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.
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.