USPTO Examiner AGGER ELIZABETH ROSE - Art Unit 2824

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18654012NONVOLATILE MEMORY READ WITH ASYMMETRIC READ-PASS VOLTAGESMay 2024February 2026Allow2110YesNo
18586943Data Storage Device and Method for Managing a Hot Count Difference in Sub-Block ModeFebruary 2024February 2026Allow2410YesNo
18531731MEMORY DEVICE AND NOISE SUPPRESSION METHOD THEREOFDecember 2023February 2026Allow2610YesNo
18518051MULTILEVEL PLATE LINE DECODINGNovember 2023October 2025Allow2300NoNo
18510656DATA STORAGE DEVICE AND OPERATING METHOD THEREOFNovember 2023May 2025Allow1810NoNo
18488045MEMORY DEVICE AND PROGRAMMING METHOD THEREOFOctober 2023March 2026Allow2910YesNo
18365771CENTRALIZED PLACEMENT OF COMMAND AND ADDRESS SIGNALS IN DEVICES AND SYSTEMSAugust 2023April 2025Allow2030NoNo
18347401SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE WITH TRANSFER CIRCUITS AND OPERATING METHOD INCLUDING ASJUSTMENT OF TRANFER CONTROL SIGNAL AND PROGRAM PULSEJuly 2023February 2026Allow3120NoNo
18346347SEPARATE PEAK CURRENT CHECKPOINTS FOR CLOSED AND OPEN BLOCK READ ICC COUNTERMEASURES IN NAND MEMORYJuly 2023September 2025Allow2610YesNo
18270114MAGNETIC ARRAY, MAGNETIC ARRAY CONTROL METHOD, AND MAGNETIC ARRAY CONTROL PROGRAMJune 2023March 2026Allow3211YesNo
18338676POWER REGULATION SYSTEM FOR MEMORY OPERATION INCLUDING A TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION CIRCUIT FOR REFERENCE AND BIAS VOLTAGE GENERATIONJune 2023November 2025Allow2930NoNo
18337926MEMORY DEVICE WITH STACKED BODY ORTHOGONAL TO SUBSTRATE AND METHOD USING WRITE AND EASE PAGE REFRESH OPERATIONSJune 2023October 2025Allow2811YesNo
18207979OPERATION METHOD OF MEMORY DEVICE INCLUDING MEMORY BLOCK CONNECTED TO WORDLINESJune 2023September 2025Allow2811YesNo
18331570RESISTIVE RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY BASED ONE-TIME-PROGRAMMABLE MEMORY DEVICESJune 2023August 2025Allow2610NoNo
18144858PMOS VOLTAGE SELECTION CIRCUIT WITH AN AUXILIARY SELECTION CIRCUIT TO PREVENT A FLOATING OUTPUTMay 2023June 2025Allow2610NoNo
18313684SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE INCLUDING RESISTIVE RANDOM ACCESS NONVOLATILE MEMORY FOR INCREASING READOUT MARGINMay 2023August 2025Allow2710NoNo
18137191BIT LINE VOLTAGE CLAMPING READ CIRCUIT FOR AN IN-MEMORY COMPUTE OPERATION WHERE SIMULTANEOUS ACCESS IS MADE TO PLURAL ROWS OF A STATIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY (SRAM)April 2023January 2026Allow3311NoNo
18183177STACKED MEMORY WITH A TIMING ADJUSTMENT FUNCTIONMarch 2023June 2025Allow2711NoNo
18167436BIT LINE SENSE AMPLIFIER AND BIT LINE SENSING METHOD OF SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICEFebruary 2023April 2025Allow2601NoNo
18106872DEVICES, METHODS, AND SYSTEMS FOR CALIBRATING A READ VOLTAGE USED FOR READING MEMORY CELLSFebruary 2023November 2025Allow3321YesNo
18163846SEMICONDUCTOR STORAGE DEVICEFebruary 2023July 2025Allow2911NoNo
18093560MEMORY DEVICE AND MEMORY SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SAMEJanuary 2023March 2024Allow1420NoNo
18148333SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE PERFORMING A MULTIPLICATION AND ACCUMULATION OPERATIONDecember 2022July 2025Allow3121YesNo
18091215MEMORY CONTROLLER AND OPERATION METHOD THEREOF, AND MEMORY SYSTEMDecember 2022October 2025Allow3420NoNo
18146864APPARATUS AND METHOD TO IMPROVE SENSING NOISE MARGIN IN A NON-LINEAR POLAR MATERIAL BASED BIT-CELLDecember 2022February 2025Allow2610NoNo
18074280NONVOLATILE SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE INCLUDING A DATA STORING CAPACITOR IN EACH PAGE BUFFERDecember 2022May 2025Allow2920NoNo
17979179MEMORY DEVICE INCLUDING ASYMMETRIC GROUND SELECTION LINESNovember 2022May 2025Allow3111YesNo
17931945MEMORY SYSTEM AND NON-VOLATILE MEMORY USING SOFT BIT DATA INFORMATION TO IMPROVE MEMORY OPERATIONSeptember 2022April 2025Allow3120YesNo
17889214READ VERIFICATION CADENCE AND TIMING IN MEMORY DEVICESAugust 2022February 2026Abandon4240YesNo
17064671ENVELOPE BASED SAMPLE CORRECTION FOR DIGITAL FLOW METROLOGYOctober 2020July 2025Allow5760NoYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner AGGER, ELIZABETH ROSE.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
1
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
11.0%
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
1
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
6.3%
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 AGGER, ELIZABETH ROSE - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner AGGER, ELIZABETH ROSE works in Art Unit 2824 and has examined 1 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 57 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner AGGER, ELIZABETH ROSE's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 96% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by AGGER, ELIZABETH ROSE receive 6.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 100% 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 AGGER, ELIZABETH ROSE is 57 months. This places the examiner in the 1% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 14% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

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 13% 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 18% 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.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 24% 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 31% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may come directly without a separate action for formal matters.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

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

  • 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 extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

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.