Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18738649 | METHOD FOR FORMING SOURCE/DRAIN CONTACTS | June 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18328315 | AIR DIRECTING SCOOP FOR HEAT SINK AND UV-C APPARATUS | June 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18199358 | PHASE UNWRAPPING METHOD BASED ON MULTI-VIEW CONSTRAINTS OF LIGHT FIELD AND RELATED COMPONENTS | May 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18035895 | MEASUREMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD OF USE | May 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18138874 | IMAGE SENSOR AND IMAGE CAPTURE DEVICE | April 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 18154803 | COMMAND ORCHESTRATION FOR DIGITAL TWIN MODELS | January 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18090265 | APPARATUS FOR MONITORING FLUID | December 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17691995 | MICROSCOPE | March 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17653281 | SENSOR WITH MULTIPLE REACTION SITES PER PIXEL | March 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17623785 | NOTIFICATION APPARATUS, NOTIFICATION SYSTEM, NOTIFICATION METHOD AND NOTIFICATION PROGRAM | December 2021 | March 2026 | Abandon | 51 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17525148 | ELEVATOR BRAKE PERFORMANCE DETECTION METHOD, DETECTION DEVICE AND ELEVATOR BRAKE | November 2021 | January 2026 | Allow | 50 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17377740 | MONITORING OF A DOOR OF AN ELEVATOR | July 2021 | February 2026 | Allow | 55 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17315029 | System for Emulating an Environment for Testing a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) System | May 2021 | February 2026 | Allow | 57 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17231610 | ELEVATOR COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | April 2021 | November 2025 | Allow | 55 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15234127 | COGNITIVE ADJUSTMENT OF SOCIAL INTERACTIONS TO EDITED CONTENT | August 2016 | August 2018 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14868224 | ENHANCED CLOUD DEMAND PREDICTION FOR SMART DATA CENTERS | September 2015 | May 2018 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14533023 | SYSTEMS FOR DETERMINING IMPROPER ASSIGNMENTS IN STATISTICAL HYPOTHESIS TESTING | November 2014 | September 2017 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14390875 | METHOD FOR OPTIMISING DOWNLOADING OF DATA | October 2014 | October 2017 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14368546 | VIRTUAL RESOURCE OBJECT COMPONENT | June 2014 | February 2017 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14245130 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROJECT AND PROCESS MANAGEMENT BY SYNCHRONIZING CUSTOM OBJECTS BETWEEN AN APPLICATION AND EXTERNAL SERVER | April 2014 | September 2016 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14050255 | DYNAMIC SYMBOLIC LINKS FOR REFERENCING IN A FILE SYSTEM | October 2013 | July 2017 | Allow | 45 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13978021 | METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR IMPARTING FUNCTIONALITY TO A MOBILE COMPUTING DEVICE | August 2013 | March 2016 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13500126 | COMMUNICATION TERMINAL HAVING EMAIL TRANSMISSION FUNCTIONALITY, METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING EMAIL, AND COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM | April 2012 | July 2014 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13500138 | COMPUTER SYSTEM AND MANAGEMENT METHOD THEREOF | April 2012 | July 2014 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13420144 | HYBRID NETWORKING SIMPLE-CONNECT SETUP USING PROXY DEVICE | March 2012 | March 2014 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13419971 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MONITORING A MONITORING-TARGET PROCESS | March 2012 | August 2014 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13279641 | LICENSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND FUNCTION PROVIDING DEVICE | October 2011 | December 2013 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13212881 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IN-PLACE DATA MIGRATION | August 2011 | September 2015 | Allow | 49 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13024167 | DETECTING WHETHER COMPONENTS ARE FUNCTIONING TOGETHER ACCORDING TO AN OPERATING HYBRID SOLUTION | February 2011 | March 2014 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11900909 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTED MEDIA STREAMING AND SHARING | September 2007 | April 2010 | Allow | 31 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11590643 | PROXY COMMANDS AND DEVICES FOR A HOME AUTOMATION DATA TRANSFER SYSTEM | October 2006 | November 2009 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11590670 | REMOTE DEVICE MANAGEMENT IN A HOME AUTOMATION DATA TRANSFER SYSTEM | October 2006 | January 2010 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11232720 | MULTI-MODAL COMMUNICATION USING A SESSION SPECIFIC PROXY SERVER | September 2005 | May 2008 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11069961 | SCALABLE IP-BASED NOTIFICATION ARCHITECTURE FOR UNIFIED MESSAGING | March 2005 | October 2009 | Allow | 55 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10938988 | CONTENTS PROVIDING DEVICE, CONTENTS PROVIDING METHOD, RECEIVING DEVICE, RECEIVING METHOD, COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, AND COMMUNICATION METHOD | September 2004 | September 2009 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10045989 | USER-CONFIGURABLE NETWORK ANALYSIS DIGEST SYSTEM AND METHOD | January 2002 | August 2009 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ALAM, UZMA.
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.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner ALAM, UZMA works in Art Unit 2884 and has examined 27 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 96.3%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 36 months.
Examiner ALAM, UZMA's allowance rate of 96.3% places them in the 86% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by ALAM, UZMA receive 1.85 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 43% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by ALAM, UZMA is 36 months. This places the examiner in the 36% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +10.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ALAM, UZMA. This interview benefit is in the 43% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 44.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 95% 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 62.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 87% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 95% percentile among all examiners. 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 5% 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 25.9% of allowed cases (in the 99% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 33% 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.