Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18413855 | Navigation Map Learning for Intelligent Hybrid-Electric Vehicle Planning | January 2024 | May 2025 | Allow | 16 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18522529 | IN-PORT OBJECT OCCUPIED SPACE RECOGNITION APPARATUS | November 2023 | February 2025 | Allow | 15 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18381056 | AUTOMATED GUIDED VEHICLE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD | October 2023 | November 2024 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18130701 | Method for Detecting Physical Forbidden Zone and Global Relocating of Service Robot | April 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18127610 | Precision Localization and Geofencing Governance System and Method for Light Electric Vehicles | March 2023 | June 2025 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 18188415 | EXECUTING AN ENERGY TRANSFER DIRECTIVE FOR AN IDLE TRANSPORT | March 2023 | May 2025 | Allow | 26 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18085888 | AUTONOMOUS PILE DRIVER APPARATUS AND METHOD | December 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 26 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18075778 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR OPERATING AN AUTONOMOUS AGENT WITH A REMOTE OPERATOR | December 2022 | December 2024 | Allow | 24 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18054433 | CONTROL METHOD FOR MOBILE OBJECT, MOBILE OBJECT, MOVEMENT CONTROL SYSTEM, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | November 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17814909 | HIGH-DEFINITION MAPPING | July 2022 | September 2024 | Allow | 26 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17731026 | DRIVER-CENTRIC MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROLLER | April 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17710067 | INTERSECTION-BASED OFFBOARD VEHICLE PATH GENERATION | March 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17710140 | EMERGENCY OPERATING SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HYBRID VEHICLE WITH DAMAGED BEARING OF ENGINE | March 2022 | January 2025 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17698692 | CONTROL DEVICE, SUSPENSION SYSTEM, AND SADDLE-TYPE VEHICLE | March 2022 | December 2024 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17678164 | MAPPING ACTIVE AND INACTIVE CONSTRUCTION ZONES FOR AUTONOMOUS DRIVING | February 2022 | August 2024 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17675937 | TECHNIQUES FOR AUTHORIZING VEHICLE CONTROL SYSTEMS | February 2022 | December 2024 | Allow | 34 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17650307 | CALCULATING MISSED MESSAGES EXPECTED TO BE RECEIVED BY A CENTRAL DEVICE FROM A PERIPHERAL DEVICE | February 2022 | July 2024 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17544142 | ACCIDENT INFORMATION RECORDING DEVICE | December 2021 | September 2024 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17615964 | ELECTRONIC CONTROL DEVICE, CONTROL METHOD, AND AUTOMATIC DRIVING SYSTEM | December 2021 | October 2024 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17459171 | SELF-POSITION ESTIMATION METHOD | August 2021 | August 2024 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17357018 | TARGETED DRIVING FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES | June 2021 | January 2025 | Allow | 43 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17341947 | ROW SENSE OPERATIONS WITH CONTEXT SENSING | June 2021 | April 2025 | Allow | 46 | 7 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17222900 | AUTOMATED VEHICLE OPERATION TO COMPENSATE FOR SENSOR FIELD-OF-VIEW LIMITATIONS | April 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 43 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17190187 | GUIDANCE SYSTEMS AND METHODS | March 2021 | January 2025 | Allow | 47 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17053327 | METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR TRANSMITTING INFORMATION | November 2020 | August 2024 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16943567 | ADAPTIVE ACCELERATION FOR MATERIALS HANDLING VEHICLE | July 2020 | November 2024 | Allow | 51 | 5 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 16738713 | Remove Objects From a Digital Road Map | January 2020 | January 2025 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BAAJOUR, SHAHIRA.
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 BAAJOUR, SHAHIRA works in Art Unit 3666 and has examined 26 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 92.3%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.
Examiner BAAJOUR, SHAHIRA's allowance rate of 92.3% places them in the 78% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by BAAJOUR, SHAHIRA receive 3.15 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 97% 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 BAAJOUR, SHAHIRA is 34 months. This places the examiner in the 24% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +28.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BAAJOUR, SHAHIRA. This interview benefit is in the 79% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 23.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 22% 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.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 20.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 17% 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.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 17% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 97% 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.
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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 35% 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 35% 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.