Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17074095 | RESISTIVE MEMORY DEVICE HAVING A TEMPLATE LAYER | October 2020 | September 2022 | Abandon | 23 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16881069 | SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE, ELECTRONIC COMPONENT, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE | May 2020 | May 2023 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14091771 | SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE AND MEMORY SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SAME | November 2013 | February 2014 | Abandon | 3 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14089849 | SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE AND MEMORY SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SAME | November 2013 | February 2014 | Abandon | 3 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14052802 | NONVOLATILE MEMORY DEVICE AND RELATED METHOD OF OPERATION | October 2013 | April 2015 | Abandon | 18 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13840689 | SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE | March 2013 | April 2014 | Abandon | 13 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13727104 | TRANSISTOR WITH REDUCED PARASITIC CAPACITANCE AND ACCESS RESISTANCE OF THE SOURCE AND DRAIN, AND METHOD OF FABRICATION OF THE SAME | December 2012 | January 2016 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13476672 | 8T SRAM Cell With One Word Line | May 2012 | November 2013 | Abandon | 18 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 13459671 | NONVOLATILE SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE | April 2012 | June 2013 | Abandon | 13 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13438858 | METHOD OF HANDLING REFERENCE CELLS IN NVM ARRAYS | April 2012 | December 2013 | Abandon | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13423759 | NONVOLATILE SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE | March 2012 | June 2013 | Abandon | 15 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13340900 | CHIP SELECT CIRCUIT AND SEMICONDUCTOR APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME | December 2011 | May 2014 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13306175 | MEMORY SYSTEM | November 2011 | January 2014 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13288293 | REDUCING READ DISTURBS AND WRITE FAILS IN A DATA STORAGE CELL | November 2011 | April 2014 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13248699 | Alternating Wordline Connection in 8T Cells for Improving Resiliency to Multi-Bit SER Upsets | September 2011 | March 2014 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 13233789 | SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE | September 2011 | May 2014 | Abandon | 32 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 13157295 | NON-VOLATILE MEMORY CELL STRUCTURE AND METHOD FOR PROGRAMMING AND READING THE SAME | June 2011 | December 2013 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 13064717 | Semiconductor device | April 2011 | October 2013 | Abandon | 30 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 12492275 | Phase-Changeable Fuse Elements and Memory Devices Containing Phase-Changeable Fuse Elements and Memory Cells Therein | June 2009 | December 2013 | Abandon | 54 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12520902 | ORGANIC FIELD-EFFECT TRANSISTORS WITH POLYMERIC GATE DIELECTRIC AND METHOD FOR MAKING SAME | June 2009 | October 2012 | Abandon | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12408721 | FAST EMBEDDED BiCMOS-THYRISTOR LATCH-UP NONVOLATILE MEMORY | March 2009 | February 2013 | Abandon | 46 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 12408598 | NONVOLATILE STORAGE DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME | March 2009 | October 2012 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 12337509 | COLUMN SELECT SIGNAL ADJUSTING CIRCUIT CAPABLE OF REDUCING INTERFERENCE BETWEEN BIT LINES AND DATA LINES AND SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE HAVING THE SAME | December 2008 | September 2013 | Abandon | 57 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12067491 | Memory Device With Improved Performance And Method Of Manufacturing Such A Memory Device | December 2008 | June 2012 | Abandon | 50 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12171183 | Radiation Sensors and Single-Event-Effects Suppression Devices | July 2008 | September 2009 | Abandon | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12050459 | STORAGE APPARATUS FOR USING ADAPTIVE CLOCK TO TEMPERATURE CHANGE AND BROADCAST RECEIVING APPARATUS USING THE SAME | March 2008 | November 2010 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11572951 | Semiconductor Arrangement Having a Resistive Memory | January 2008 | June 2012 | Abandon | 60 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12003683 | Write driver of semiconductor memory device and driving method thereof | December 2007 | November 2010 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11710059 | Multiple layer random accessing memory | February 2007 | August 2010 | Abandon | 42 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11505141 | Write line design in MRAM | August 2006 | February 2014 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 09984816 | NONVOLATILE SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY SYSTEM WITH CAPABILITY OF STARTING A NEW PROGRAM OPERATION WHILE AN EXISTING PROGRAM OPERATION IS BEING PERFORMED | October 2001 | October 2002 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ELMS, RICHARD T.
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 ELMS, RICHARD T works in Art Unit 2824 and has examined 31 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 6.5%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 30 months.
Examiner ELMS, RICHARD T's allowance rate of 6.5% 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 ELMS, RICHARD T receive 1.26 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 14% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by ELMS, RICHARD T is 30 months. This places the examiner in the 60% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -6.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ELMS, RICHARD T. This interview benefit is in the 5% 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, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 41% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
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.
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, 108.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 94% 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 25% 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 32% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may 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.