USPTO Examiner ZARABIAN AMIR - Art Unit 2827

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18651526ACCESS TIME IN A MEMORY ARRAYApril 2024March 2026Allow2310NoNo
18597860Sense Amplifier and Method ThereofMarch 2024August 2025Allow1710NoNo
18587279NONVOLATILE MEMORYFebruary 2024March 2026Allow2510YesNo
182156813D LAYOUT AND ORGANIZATION FOR ENHANCEMENT OF MODERN MEMORY SYSTEMSJune 2023March 2026Allow3220NoNo
18204806STORAGE SYSTEM AND SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE WITH IMPROVED POWER SUPPLY EFFICIENCYJune 2023September 2025Allow2710NoNo
18314825METHOD FOR TESTING AND REPAIRING MEMORY DEVICEMay 2023September 2025Allow2810NoNo
18030834MEMRISTIVE LOGIC GATE CIRCUITApril 2023August 2025Allow2810NoNo
17691957THRESHOLD VOLTAGE DISTRIBTUTION ADJUSTMENT FOR BUFFERMarch 2022January 2023Allow1010NoNo
17679656SELECTIVE WORDLINE SCANS BASED ON A DATA STATE METRICFebruary 2022February 2023Allow1110NoNo
17583967Pooled Memory System Enabled by Monolithic In-Package Optical I/OJanuary 2022February 2023Allow1310NoNo
17561787RECOVERY OF MEMORY FROM ASYNCHRONOUS POWER LOSSDecember 2021January 2023Allow1310NoNo
17561545SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE AND MEMORY SYSTEMDecember 2021February 2023Allow1410YesNo
17557389MEMORY ARRAY STRUCTURES FOR CAPACITIVE SENSE NAND MEMORYDecember 2021January 2023Allow1310NoNo
17540314SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICEDecember 2021January 2023Allow1410NoNo
17523369STORAGE CONTROLLER, STORAGE DEVICE, AND OPERATION METHOD OF STORAGE DEVICENovember 2021March 2023Allow1610YesNo
17500066SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICEOctober 2021December 2022Allow1410NoNo
17468711SIGNAL MODULATION APPARATUS, MEMORY STORAGE APPARATUS, AND SIGNAL MODULATION METHODSeptember 2021February 2023Allow1700NoNo
17305878APPARATUSES AND METHODS FOR REFRESH ADDRESS MASKINGJuly 2021January 2023Allow1810NoNo
17335606INTEGRATED CIRCUIT INCLUDING CELL ARRAY WITH WORD LINE ASSIST CELLSJune 2021January 2023Allow2010YesNo
17220320PAGE BUFFER AND SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE HAVING THE SAMEApril 2021February 2023Allow2320NoNo
16275776SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE, MEMORY SYSTEM, AND WRITE METHODFebruary 2019September 2019Abandon700NoNo
15479196LIGHT INCIDENT ANGLE CONTROLLABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOFApril 2017June 2018Abandon1510NoNo
14903600MEMORY SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING DATA IN MEMORYJanuary 2016January 2017Abandon1210NoNo
14696334ELECTRONIC DEVICEApril 2015February 2017Abandon2220NoNo
14634708MEMORY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE SAMEFebruary 2015February 2017Abandon2410NoNo
14192380NONVOLATILE SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICEFebruary 2014September 2016Abandon3010NoNo
14192428NONVOLATILE SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICEFebruary 2014September 2016Abandon3110NoNo
14153560GLOBAL BITLINE WRITE ASSIST FOR SRAM ARCHITECTURESJanuary 2014December 2015Abandon2310NoNo
14138160COMBINATION STORAGE AND PROCESSING DEVICEDecember 2013August 2018Abandon5620YesNo
14100479SEMICONDUCTOR APPARATUS AND CHIP ID GENERATION METHOD THEREOFDecember 2013October 2015Abandon2220NoNo
14014244NONVOLATILE SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICEAugust 2013January 2015Abandon1710NoNo
13917662CONTENT ADDRESSABLE MEMORY CELLS AND TERNARY CONTENT ADDRESSABLE MEMORY CELLSJune 2013December 2014Abandon1810NoNo
13839219SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY STORAGE APPARATUS HAVING CHARGE STORAGE LAYER AND CONTROL GATEMarch 2013August 2015Abandon2910NoNo
13834477OTPROM ARRAY WITH LEAKAGE CURRENT CANCELATION FOR ENHANCED EFUSE SENSINGMarch 2013October 2015Abandon3120NoNo
13796808ERASING METHOD OF RESISTIVE RANDOM ACCESS MEMORYMarch 2013December 2014Abandon2120NoNo
13779038NONVOLATILE MEMORY DEVICE AND OPERATING METHOD THEREOFFebruary 2013October 2014Abandon1910YesNo
13747777NONVOLATILE MEMORY APPARATUS AND METHOD OF OPERATING THE SAMEJanuary 2013September 2015Abandon3220NoNo
13720358FLASH MEMORY DEVICE AND OPERATING METHOD THEREOFDecember 2012December 2014Abandon2420YesNo
13614486SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE AND METHOD OF OPERATING THE SAMESeptember 2012January 2015Abandon2810NoNo
13308736SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICEDecember 2011February 2013Abandon1510NoNo
13269416Method and Apparatus for Memory Fault ToleranceOctober 2011April 2012Abandon600NoNo
13052978SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE IN WHICH RESISTANCE STATE OF MEMORY CELL IS CONTROLLABLEMarch 2011May 2013Abandon2610NoNo
12929696Semiconductor storage deviceFebruary 2011September 2013Abandon3120NoNo
12774618MEMORY DEVICE WORD LINE DRIVERS AND METHODSMay 2010September 2011Abandon1600NoNo
12453855Magnetic head assembly and magnetic recording apparatusMay 2009April 2011Abandon2300NoNo
12207104SYSTEM TO ADJUST A REFERENCE CURRENTSeptember 2008April 2010Allow2000NoNo
12134686MAGNETIC MEMORY ARRAYSJune 2008March 2009Abandon1010NoNo
12028652COMPLEMENTARY OUTPUT FLIP FLOPFebruary 2008January 2009Abandon1100NoNo
11923505Flash EEPROM SystemOctober 2007September 2008Abandon1000NoNo
11745925MEMORYMay 2007March 2009Abandon2210NoNo
11626042MAGNETORESISTIVE ELEMENT AND MAGNETIC MEMORYJanuary 2007June 2009Abandon2920NoNo
11615936Stacked capacitor memoryDecember 2006August 2007Abandon700NoNo
11565439MEMORY REDUNDANCY PROGRAMMINGNovember 2006September 2007Abandon900NoNo
11338684Semiconductor integrated circuit and method of testing the sameJanuary 2006June 2009Abandon4121NoNo
11325224Memory architectures including non-volatile memory devicesJanuary 2006May 2009Abandon4040YesNo
11100914Magnetic memory and recording method thereofApril 2005January 2009Abandon4570YesNo
11050428INTEGRATED SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY WITH TEMPERATURE-DEPENDENT VOLTAGE GENERATIONFebruary 2005January 2007Allow2400NoNo
10948498Input/output line sense amplifiers and/or input/output line drivers in semiconductor memory devices and methods of operating such devicesSeptember 2004March 2009Abandon6040NoYes
10707665[NONVOLATILE MEMORY STRUCTURE]December 2003December 2005Allow2411NoNo
09954184MEMORY CARD DEVICE INCLUDING A CLOCK GENERATORSeptember 2001March 2002Allow600NoNo

Appeals Overview

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

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
6.4%
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

Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner ZARABIAN, AMIR - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner ZARABIAN, AMIR works in Art Unit 2827 and has examined 50 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 28.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 21 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner ZARABIAN, AMIR's allowance rate of 28.0% places them in the 4% 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 ZARABIAN, AMIR receive 1.22 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 15% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by ZARABIAN, AMIR is 21 months. This places the examiner in the 91% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +11.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ZARABIAN, AMIR. This interview benefit is in the 46% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.

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 25.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 34% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 96% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 93% 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 frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 87.5% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 87% 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 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 14.3% of allowed cases (in the 91% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.

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.
  • Request pre-appeal conferences: PACs are highly effective with this examiner. Before filing a full appeal brief, request a PAC to potentially resolve issues without full PTAB review.
  • Appeal filing as negotiation tool: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

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.