Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18778600 | BLOCK STATUS PARITY DATA IN MEMORY | July 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18776842 | CONTROL CHIP AND EVALUATION BOARD | July 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18736948 | Data Storage Device and Method for Defining Caching Layers Based on Cache Attributes | June 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18734291 | VEHICULAR DISPLAY DEVICE | June 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 16 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18665590 | CONTROL DEVICE FOR AUTO LANE CHANGING | May 2024 | February 2026 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18481704 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND COMPUTING SYSTEM INCLUDING SAME | October 2023 | October 2024 | Allow | 12 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18296567 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF IMITATING TARGET VEHICLE BEHAVIOR FOR AUTOMATED DRIVING | April 2023 | August 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17944610 | ADAPTIVE CACHING FOR HYBRID COLUMNAR DATABASES WITH HETEROGENEOUS PAGE SIZES | September 2022 | July 2024 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17760293 | DETERMINATION DEVICE AND POSTURE CONTROL DEVICE | August 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17305487 | Processor Data Cache with Shared Mid-Level Cache and Low-Level Cache | July 2021 | October 2024 | Allow | 39 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 17240680 | INTELLIGENT APPLICATION PLACEMENT IN A HYBRID INFRASTRUCTURE | April 2021 | June 2024 | Allow | 38 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16595992 | HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING SYSTEM FOR DEEP LEARNING | October 2019 | October 2024 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16399389 | LIGHTWEIGHT MECHANISMS FOR SELECTING INFREQUENTLY EXECUTED METHODS FOR EVICTION FROM CODE CACHE | April 2019 | March 2020 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15963668 | DYNAMIC MEMORY PROTECTION | April 2018 | April 2020 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15485347 | Caching a Block of Data in a Multi-Tenant Cache Storage Device Based on Space Usage Boundary Estimates | April 2017 | October 2019 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15485981 | Lightweight Mechanisms for Selecting Infrequently Executed Methods for Eviction from Code Cache | April 2017 | January 2019 | Allow | 22 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14848841 | VIRTUAL MACHINE HOST SERVER APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR OPERATING THE SAME | September 2015 | June 2017 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14723005 | Global Storage Solution With Logical Cylinders and Capsules | May 2015 | June 2019 | Allow | 49 | 4 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 14696088 | MANAGEMENT OF POINT-IN-TIME COPY RELATIONSHIP FOR EXTENT SPACE EFFICIENT VOLUMES | April 2015 | August 2017 | Allow | 28 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14638506 | SECURING SENSITIVE HISTORIAN CONFIGURATION INFORMATION | March 2015 | September 2018 | Allow | 42 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14603277 | MEMORY INITIALIZATION USING CACHE STATE | January 2015 | February 2017 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14590322 | ARCHIVING SYSTEM WITH PARTITIONS OF INDIVIDUAL ARCHIVES | January 2015 | August 2016 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14532155 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRANSFERRING FRAMES WITH DIFFERENT WORLD WIDE NAME ADDRESSES AND CONNECTION RATES BETWEEN INITIATORS OF A HOST DEVICE AND A PORT | November 2014 | April 2016 | Allow | 18 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 14502153 | CACHE COHERENCY VERIFICATION USING ORDERED LISTS | September 2014 | January 2017 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14103026 | METADATA REBUILD IN A FLASH MEMORY CONTROLLER FOLLOWING A LOSS OF POWER | December 2013 | July 2015 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14037923 | MANAGEMENT OF TRANSACTIONAL MEMORY ACCESS REQUESTS BY A CACHE MEMORY | September 2013 | September 2015 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13968984 | DATA TRANSFER DEVICE | August 2013 | December 2015 | Allow | 27 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13976325 | ADAPTIVE DATA PREFETCHING | June 2013 | November 2015 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13904759 | High Performance System Topology for NAND Memory Systems | May 2013 | March 2016 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13790088 | MANAGEMENT OF POINT-IN-TIME COPY RELATIONSHIP FOR EXTENT SPACE EFFICIENT VOLUMES | March 2013 | January 2015 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13308195 | Storing Multi-Stream Non-Linear Access Patterns in a Flash Based File-System | November 2011 | May 2015 | Allow | 42 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13245502 | MANAGEMENT OF POINT-IN-TIME COPY RELATIONSHIP FOR EXTENT SPACE EFFICIENT VOLUMES | September 2011 | January 2015 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13047115 | WWN TABLE MANAGMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS | March 2011 | July 2014 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12652873 | DISK ARRAY CONTROL APPARATUS | January 2010 | August 2014 | Allow | 55 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12652598 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IMPROVING MEMORY TRANSFER | January 2010 | August 2015 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12349199 | METHOD FOR FAST FORMAT OF A FULLY ALLOCATED VOLUME WHEN COPIED FROM A SPACE EFFICIENT VOLUME | January 2009 | May 2014 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12276072 | CACHE MEMORY BYPASS IN A MULTI-CORE PROCESSOR (MCP) | November 2008 | September 2017 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12276069 | PSEUDO CACHE MEMORY IN A MULTI-CORE PROCESSOR (MCP) | November 2008 | April 2015 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12275552 | CACHE MEMORY SHARING IN A MULTI-CORE PROCESSOR (MCP) | November 2008 | July 2017 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12199264 | ARCHIVING SYSTEM WITH PARTITIONS OF INDIVIDUAL ARCHIVES | August 2008 | August 2014 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 12217240 | Memory management for hypervisor loading | July 2008 | December 2015 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MERCADO, RAMON A.
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, 20.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable reconsideration.
⚠ 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 MERCADO, RAMON A works in Art Unit 3658 and has examined 32 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 38 months.
Examiner MERCADO, RAMON A's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 99% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by MERCADO, RAMON A receive 2.69 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 79% 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.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by MERCADO, RAMON A is 38 months. This places the examiner in the 30% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MERCADO, RAMON A. This interview benefit is in the 16% 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, 27.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 46% 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 21.1% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 26% 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 57.1% of appeals filed. This is in the 30% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 37% percentile). This examiner makes examiner's amendments less often than average. You may need to make most claim amendments yourself.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 40% 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.