Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18576214 | Network Nodes and Methods Therein for Event Monitoring | January 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18458411 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MONITORING A SENSOR NETWORK | August 2023 | September 2025 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18268180 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR SELECTING RESOURCE ON BASIS OF LCH IN NR V2X | June 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13275581 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING A SHARED BUFFER CONSTRUCT IN PERFORMANCE OF CONCURRENT DATA-DRIVEN TASKS | October 2011 | March 2012 | Allow | 5 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13178846 | LATENCY CONTROL CIRCUIT AND METHOD USING QUEUING DESIGN METHOD | July 2011 | March 2012 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13164156 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR DIRECT MEMORY ACCESS IN A HUB-BASED MEMORY SYSTEM | June 2011 | February 2012 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13163273 | METHODS FOR DATA REDUNDANCY ACROSS THREE OR MORE STORAGE DEVICES | June 2011 | March 2012 | Allow | 9 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13087459 | STORAGE SYSTEM COMPRISING POWER SAVING FUNCTION | April 2011 | January 2012 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13014753 | TRANSMISSION OF DATA BURSTS ON A CONSTANT DATA RATE CHANNEL | January 2011 | February 2012 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13013157 | MEMORY DEVICES IMPLEMENTING CLOCK MIRRORING SCHEME AND RELATED MEMORY SYSTEMS AND CLOCK MIRRORING METHODS | January 2011 | December 2011 | Allow | 11 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12966059 | METHOD, ARRANGEMENT, DATA PROCESSING PROGRAM AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR EXCHANGING MESSAGE DATA IN A DISTRIBUTED COMPUTER SYSTEM | December 2010 | April 2012 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12824473 | HAND-HELD TEST METER WITH DISRUPTION AVOIDANCE CIRCUITRY | June 2010 | April 2012 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12822704 | DIAGNOSTIC DATA COLLECTION AND STORAGE PUT-AWAY STATION IN A MULTIPROCESSOR SYSTEM | June 2010 | April 2012 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12809309 | PORT SETTING METHOD OF APPLICATION SYSTEM | June 2010 | March 2012 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12763813 | COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT IN A TRANSACTIONAL MEMORY | April 2010 | February 2012 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12607201 | USING CENTRAL DIRECT MEMORY ACCESS (CDMA) CONTROLLER TO TEST INTEGRATED CIRCUIT | October 2009 | April 2012 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12607249 | MODE SWITCHING | October 2009 | March 2012 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12509372 | DATA TRANSFER APPARATUS, SYSTEM AND METHOD USING THE SAME | July 2009 | April 2012 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12468550 | REAL TIME DATA INTERFACE | May 2009 | April 2012 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12221841 | STORAGE DEVICE FOR MOUNTING TO A HOST | August 2008 | April 2012 | Allow | 45 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12006247 | EVEN AND ODD FRAME COMBINATION DATA PATH ARCHITECTURE | December 2007 | March 2012 | Allow | 51 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 10833363 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR COMMUNICATING DATA BETWEEN TWO HOSTS | April 2004 | August 2009 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10411716 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A COMMUNICATION BUS | April 2003 | September 2005 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10370279 | INTERFACING DEVICES | February 2003 | December 2005 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 09891032 | COMPRESSED DATA TRANSMISSION OVER A PLURALITY OF TRANSMISSION PATHS | June 2001 | June 2005 | Allow | 48 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 09852467 | DEVICE IDENTIFICATION AND CONTROL IN NETWORK ENVIRONMENT | May 2001 | February 2006 | Allow | 57 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SORRELL, ERON J.
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 SORRELL, ERON J works in Art Unit 3992 and has examined 23 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 22 months.
Examiner SORRELL, ERON J's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 100% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by SORRELL, ERON J receive 1.61 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 31% 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 SORRELL, ERON J is 22 months. This places the examiner in the 90% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SORRELL, ERON J. This interview benefit is in the 17% 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, 41.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 93% 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 33.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 50% 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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 100% 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, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 49% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 8.7% of allowed cases (in the 92% 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 52% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions more often than average when claims are allowable but formal matters remain (MPEP § 714.14).
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.