Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18701907 | POWER AMPLIFIER COMPRESSED REFERENCE SIGNALS FOR DIGITAL POST DISTORTION DETECTION | April 2024 | March 2026 | Allow | 23 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18575097 | USER EQUIPMENT, BASE STATION, AND COMMUNICATION METHOD | December 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 24 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18385350 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING SIDELINK TRANSMISSION IN SIDELINK RESOURCE POOLS IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | October 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 25 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18547146 | CHANNEL STATE INFORMATION REPORTING METHOD, CHANNEL STATE INFORMATION RECEIVING METHOD, COMMUNICATION NODE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | August 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18273874 | TERMINAL, BASE STATION, AND RADIO COMMUNICATION METHOD | July 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18337056 | WIRELESS COMMUNICATION METHOD FOR SYMBOLS TRANSMISSION AND APPARATUS | June 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13379342 | SYNCHRONIZATION ACQUISITION METHOD AND APPARATUS IN MULTI-CARRIER SYSTEM | December 2011 | August 2014 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13379312 | METHOD AND ITS DEVICES OF NETWORK TCP TRAFFIC ONLINE IDENTIFICATION USING FEATURES IN THE HEAD OF THE DATA FLOW | December 2011 | March 2014 | Allow | 27 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13184223 | VEHICLE BATTERY POWER SAVE TIMER | July 2011 | July 2014 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13028282 | DISTRIBUTED ROUTER COMPUTING AT NETWORK NODES | February 2011 | March 2014 | Allow | 37 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12924764 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR REDUCING SWITCHOVER LATENCY IN IPTV SYSTEMS | October 2010 | March 2014 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KADING, JOSHUA A.
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, 50.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner KADING, JOSHUA A works in Art Unit 3993 and has examined 5 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 36 months.
Examiner KADING, JOSHUA A'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 KADING, JOSHUA A receive 2.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 52% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by KADING, JOSHUA A is 36 months. This places the examiner in the 38% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 98% 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 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 4% 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 24% 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 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.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 20.0% of allowed cases (in the 98% 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.