Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18785643 | DISTRIBUTED JOURNALING FOR WRITE OPERATIONS TO RAID SYSTEMS | July 2024 | December 2024 | Allow | 5 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18483340 | WORKFLOWS FOR AUTOMATED OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT | October 2023 | November 2024 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18028846 | Method for Recording a Number of Events in an Encoded Tracer Variable in a Security-Oriented Computer Program | March 2023 | November 2024 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17926078 | RETRIEVING DIAGNOSTIC INFORMATION FROM A PCI EXPRESS ENDPOINT | November 2022 | December 2024 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17962869 | IDENTIFYING ROOT CAUSE ANOMALIES IN TIME SERIES | October 2022 | October 2024 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15689902 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR FAILURE DETECTION IN STORAGE SYSTEM | August 2017 | April 2019 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15194884 | CHECKPOINT TRIGGERING IN A COMPUTER SYSTEM | June 2016 | May 2018 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15065907 | IDENTIFYING INTERVALS OF UNUSUAL ACTIVITY IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS | March 2016 | May 2017 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14960208 | TECHNIQUES FOR REAL TIME SERVER TESTING IN A PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT | December 2015 | April 2017 | Allow | 17 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14887354 | IDENTIFYING INTERVALS OF UNUSUAL ACTIVITY IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS | October 2015 | May 2017 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14244388 | PARITY CHUNK OPERATING METHOD AND DATA SERVER APPARATUS FOR SUPPORTING THE SAME IN DISTRIBUTED RAID SYSTEM | April 2014 | June 2016 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14205458 | ARTIFACT SELECTION USING TEXTUAL REPORTS | March 2014 | December 2015 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14085996 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CAUSE ANALYSIS INVOLVING CONFIGURATION CHANGES | November 2013 | December 2014 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13758778 | Motivating Lazy RCU Callbacks Under Out-Of-Memory Conditions | February 2013 | October 2014 | Allow | 20 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13584277 | ERROR DETECTION AND/OR CORRECTION THROUGH COORDINATED COMPUTATIONS | August 2012 | June 2013 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13567601 | Administering Incident Pools For Incident Analysis | August 2012 | October 2014 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13443813 | FAULT-TOLERANT COMPUTER SYSTEM, FAULT-TOLERANT COMPUTER SYSTEM CONTROL METHOD AND RECORDING MEDIUM STORING CONTROL PROGRAM FOR FAULT-TOLERANT COMPUTER SYSTEM | April 2012 | November 2014 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13411592 | OBSCURING INFORMATION IN MESSAGES USING COMPRESSION WITH SITE-SPECIFIC PREBUILT DICTIONARY | March 2012 | January 2013 | Allow | 10 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13334348 | UNFUSING A FAILING PART OF AN OPERATOR GRAPH | December 2011 | May 2014 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13238946 | SYSTEM HEALTH MONITORING | September 2011 | November 2013 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13220139 | FLEXIBLE SOC DESIGN VERIFICATION ENVIRONMENT | August 2011 | September 2013 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13213512 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CAUSE ANALYSIS INVOLVING CONFIGURATION CHANGES | August 2011 | July 2013 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13111372 | APPARATUS, METHOD, AND PROGRAM CONFIGURED TO EMBED A STANDBY UNIT BASED ON AN ABNORMALITY OF AN ACTIVE UNIT | May 2011 | August 2013 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12994480 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING DATA USING TURBO CODE | November 2010 | July 2013 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12913339 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OFFLINE DIAGNOSIS BASED ON A PRIORITY LEVEL SETTING | October 2010 | July 2013 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12913228 | Data Recovery in a Cross Domain Environment | October 2010 | April 2013 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12852136 | HYBRID SOFT DECISION HARD DECISION REED SOLOMON DECODING | August 2010 | May 2013 | Allow | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12849722 | ERROR CORRECTING CIRCUIT AND DISK STORAGE DEVICE FOR DETECTING AND CORRECTING INSERTION AND/OR DELETION ERRORS | August 2010 | October 2012 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12651076 | HEAP DUMP OBJECT IDENTIFICATION IN A HEAP DUMP ANALYSIS TOOL | December 2009 | June 2016 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12644779 | ERROR CORRECTION MECHANISMS FOR 8-BIT MEMORY DEVICES | December 2009 | August 2013 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12351196 | DYNAMIC TESTING OF NETWORKS | January 2009 | November 2012 | Allow | 46 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12269227 | STORAGE SYSTEM HAVING STORAGE DEVICES FOR STORING DATA AND CONTROL DEVICES FOR CONTROLLING THE STORAGE DEVICES | November 2008 | May 2013 | Allow | 54 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KUDIRKA, JOSEPH R.
With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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, 100.0% 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.
✓ Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner KUDIRKA, JOSEPH R works in Art Unit 4167 and has examined 31 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 25 months.
Examiner KUDIRKA, JOSEPH R'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 KUDIRKA, JOSEPH R receive 1.61 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 43% 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 KUDIRKA, JOSEPH R is 25 months. This places the examiner in the 70% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KUDIRKA, JOSEPH R. This interview benefit is in the 12% 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, 37.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 83% 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 63.6% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 85% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 47% 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 45% 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 44% 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.