USPTO Examiner MAWARI REDHWAN K - Art Unit 3664

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18893154Vehicle Scan Tool Configured to Receive Automated Initialization RequestsSeptember 2024January 2026Allow1600YesNo
18659534TRAFFIC PLANNING METHOD FOR A VEHICLE FLEETMay 2024January 2026Allow2110NoNo
18650842SAFELY SCHEDULING OFFLOADING OF COMPUTING TASKS FOR AN AUTONOMOUS VEHICLEApril 2024November 2025Allow1900YesNo
18614670MEASURING SYSTEM AND METHODMarch 2024February 2026Allow2310NoNo
18601754SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EMBEDDING UNCERTAINTY ESTIMATION INTO DEEP-NEURAL-NETWORK-BASED AUTONOMOUS DRIVING PERCEPTION FRAMEWORKSMarch 2024February 2026Allow2310YesNo
18596823VEHICLE TRAJECTORY CONTROL FOR PRECISE ROUTE FOLLOWINGMarch 2024February 2026Allow2310YesNo
18590375Path Determination for Autonomous Vehicle ParkingFebruary 2024December 2025Allow2110YesNo
18434630SURROUNDING AWARE TRAJECTORY PREDICTIONFebruary 2024March 2026Abandon2510NoNo
18390227VEHICLE GUIDANCE SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED METHODS OF USE AT LOGISTICS YARDS AND OTHER LOCATIONSDecember 2023December 2025Allow2410YesNo
18542087METROLOGY SYSTEM WITH POSITION AND ORIENTATION TRACKING UTILIZING PATTERNS OF LIGHT BEAMSDecember 2023February 2026Allow2600NoNo
18540185DEFINITION OF BOUNDARY FOR A ROBOTIC WORK TOOLDecember 2023February 2026Allow2620YesYes
18522113ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMNovember 2023February 2026Allow2620NoNo
18283994METHOD FOR DETECTING ABNORMAL VIBRATION OF ROLLING MILL, APPARATUS FOR DETECTING ABNORMALITY OF ROLLING MILL, ROLLING METHOD, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING METAL STRIPSeptember 2023March 2026Allow3010YesNo
18457845Systems and methods of configuring vehicle service tools associated with display device based on operating condition of vehicleAugust 2023November 2025Allow2610NoNo
18348159ELECTRONIC MAP CORRECTION METHOD, NAVIGATION INFORMATION SETTING METHOD, NAVIGATION METHOD, AND APPARATUSJuly 2023February 2026Allow3220NoNo
18314514ENHANCEMENTS TO BEYOND-VISUAL-LINE-OF-SIGHT (BVLOS) OPERATION OF REMOTE-CONTROLLED APPARATUSESMay 2023December 2025Allow3110YesNo
18247126METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING AN OPTIMISED INTERNET CONNECTIVITY CONFIGURATIONMarch 2023February 2026Abandon3410NoNo
17556639MAGNETIC INDUCTION COMMUNICATION-BASED VEHICLE CONTROL APPARATUS AND METHODDecember 2021November 2025Allow4730NoNo
17515172REAL-TIME SELECTION OF DATA TO COLLECT IN AUTONOMOUS VEHICLEOctober 2021March 2026Allow5240YesNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner MAWARI, REDHWAN K - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner MAWARI, REDHWAN K works in Art Unit 3664 and has examined 2 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 52 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner MAWARI, REDHWAN K'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.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by MAWARI, REDHWAN K receive 3.50 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 94% 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 MAWARI, REDHWAN K is 52 months. This places the examiner in the 4% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MAWARI, REDHWAN K. 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 33.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 73% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.

After-Final Amendment Practice

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 3% 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.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 38% 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 41% 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 RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • 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.