USPTO Examiner HU JINSONG - Art Unit 2643

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
19228495IDENTIFICATION OF WIRELESS LOCAL AREA NETWORK STATIONS USING RANDOM MEDIUM ACCESS CONTROL ADDRESSINGJune 2025November 2025Allow500NoNo
19035294APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR COMMUNICATION CHANNEL CONFIGURATIONJanuary 2025April 2025Allow200NoNo
18949373METHODS AND NODE APPARATUS FOR MULTIPLE NODE COMMUNICATION PATHS TO A SERVER WITHIN A WIRELESS NODE NETWORKNovember 2024June 2025Allow710NoNo
18920647METHOD AND ACCESS POINT FOR DETERMINING AND PROCESSING A TERMINAL IN A STICKY ROAMING STATEOctober 2024March 2025Allow510YesNo
18598283RESOLVING AOA AMBIGUITY BASED ON ROTATION OF USER EQUIPMENTMarch 2024March 2026Allow2400NoNo
18567261SIM CARD COMMUNICATION CIRCUIT, RELATED APPARATUS, AND CONTROL METHODDecember 2023December 2025Allow2400NoNo
18497753HIGH-PRECISION SPATIO-TEMPORAL TRAJECTORY RECOVERY METHOD BASED ON CELL PHONE SIGNALING DATAOctober 2023February 2026Allow2810NoNo
18459411SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR STORAGE OF UE POSITIONING CAPABILITIES IN A NETWORKAugust 2023July 2025Abandon2240YesNo
18276410Network Nodes and Methods Therein for Facilitating Registration of Terminal DeviceAugust 2023August 2025Allow2400YesNo
18260648Radio Network Node, User Equipment, and Methods Performed ThereinJuly 2023November 2025Allow2810NoNo
18336948Authentication Management Method for Non-3GPP Access of a UE Device to a 5G NetworkJune 2023September 2025Allow2701NoNo
18034698Method and Apparatus for Locating Terminal, Computer Device, and Storage MediumApril 2023November 2025Allow3010NoNo
18011969DETERMINING PROXIMITYDecember 2022February 2026Allow3810NoNo
17976857Communication Analysis and Correlation System to Identify and Track Digital Personas Through Wireless CommunicationsOctober 2022August 2025Abandon3410NoNo
17908213METHODS FOR SUPPORTING POSITIONING OF A WIRELESS DEVICE AND RELATED NETWORK NODES AND WIRELESS DEVICEAugust 2022November 2025Allow3910NoNo
17789056METHODS, DEVICES, AND MEDIUM FOR COMMUNICATIONJune 2022August 2025Abandon3720NoNo
17806870TECHNIQUES FOR WAKEUP SIGNALING FOR DISCONTINUOUS RECEPTION GROUPSJune 2022February 2026Allow4420YesNo
17777822Method for locating a geo-tagMay 2022November 2025Allow4210NoNo
17703416METHOD AND DEVICE FOR TRANSMITTING/RECEIVING SIGNAL IN HALF-DUPLEX SCHEMEMarch 2022March 2025Allow3620NoNo
14444621SYSTEM AND METHOD OF AUTOMATIC NEIGHBOR RELATION (ANR) INTELLIGENCE ENHANCEMENT FOR BOOMER NEIGHBOR IN LTEJuly 2014January 2016Abandon1810NoNo
14341664INTERNATIONAL DIALING THROUGH CALL CONNECTIONSJuly 2014January 2016Abandon1810NoNo
14295487REMOTE HATCH POSITION AND CONFIRMATIONJune 2014November 2015Abandon1810NoNo
14296112INTERNATIONAL DIALING THROUGH CALL CONNECTIONSJune 2014January 2016Abandon1910NoNo
14228313METAL PROTECTOR FRAME ASSEMBLY FOR MOBILE PHONEMarch 2014September 2015Abandon1810NoNo
14213444SYSTEM AND METHOD OF OPERATING A SECONDARY MOBILE DEVICEMarch 2014April 2016Abandon2510NoNo
14195304PRESSURE-ENABLED NEAR FIELD COMMUNICATIONS DEVICEMarch 2014January 2016Abandon2210NoNo
14194664WIRELESS NETWORK PROMOTIONSFebruary 2014January 2016Abandon2310NoNo
14105453PROACTIVE PROVISIONING OF POLICIES BY AN ANDSF SERVERDecember 2013August 2016Abandon3220YesNo
14097341Recommending Preferred Ringer Settings For A Mobile Communications DeviceDecember 2013April 2016Abandon2820NoNo
14044345SYSTEM AND METHOD OF INTERACTING WITH A BROADCASTER VIA AN APPLICATIONOctober 2013April 2016Abandon3020NoNo
13966250SHORT MESSAGE SERVICE PROMPTING SYSTEM AND METHODAugust 2013August 2015Abandon2420NoNo
13907741DEVICE LOCALIZATION USING CAMERA AND WIRELESS SIGNALMay 2013June 2016Abandon3730NoNo
13775067METHOD OF DISPLAYING MOBILE TERMINAL IN REMOTE DEVICE AND APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING THE SAMEFebruary 2013July 2015Abandon2930NoNo
13772691ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT, STORAGE MEDIUM AND OUTPUT CONTROLLING METHODFebruary 2013June 2016Abandon4040NoNo
13755292ADAPTIVE TIMING FOR TRIGGERING GSM TO TD-SCDMA CELL RESELECTIONJanuary 2013May 2016Abandon3950YesNo
13696161Method and Device for Data Processing in a Wireless NetworkJanuary 2013January 2016Abandon3860NoNo
13589714METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING SERVICE AND SERVICE INTERFACE BASED ON POSITIONAugust 2012July 2015Abandon3560NoYes
11801731Transmission method using scalable video coding and mobile communication system using sameMay 2007December 2015Abandon60130YesNo
11733605Efficient Deployment of Mobile Test Units to Gather Location-Dependent Radio-Frequency DataApril 2007November 2015Abandon6050NoYes
10448481Antenna system for adjustable sectorization of a wireless cellMay 2003November 2012Abandon6020NoYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner HU, JINSONG.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
2
Examiner Affirmed
2
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
8.9%
Lower than average

What This Means

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.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
4
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
4
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
5.1%
Lower than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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.

Strategic Recommendations

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 HU, JINSONG - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner HU, JINSONG works in Art Unit 2643 and has examined 21 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 0.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 29 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner HU, JINSONG's allowance rate of 0.0% places them in the 0% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by HU, JINSONG receive 3.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 86% 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by HU, JINSONG is 29 months. This places the examiner in the 64% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HU, JINSONG. 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 0% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 50.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 44% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show below-average success with this examiner. Consider whether your arguments are strong enough to warrant a PAC request.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 33.3% of appeals filed. This is in the 4% 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 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 3% 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 Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 20% 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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.
  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.