USPTO Examiner VELEZ LOPEZ MARIO M - Art Unit 2118

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18637921System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Identifying Events and Representing a Plurality of Events in an Interactive Graphical User InterfaceApril 2024September 2024Allow510NoNo
18415905VIDEO PLAYER INTEGRATION WITHIN WEBSITESJanuary 2024June 2025Allow1720NoNo
18516705METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR GENERATING AUTOMATIONS FOR ORGANIZING AND DISPLAYING ITEMS IN A COLLABORATION PLATFORMNovember 2023May 2025Allow1830YesNo
18479620INTEGRATION OF PICTORIAL CONTENT INTO SECURE SIGNATURE DOCUMENTSOctober 2023April 2025Abandon1820YesNo
18358541PROVIDING VISUAL CONTENT EDITING FUNCTIONSJuly 2023September 2024Allow1420YesNo
18316689TOGGLING THE DISPLAY OF RICH CONTENT WITHIN A DIGITAL DOCUMENTMay 2023October 2024Allow1740YesNo
18035187CONTROLLERMay 2023July 2025Allow2630YesNo
17813752CROP IRRIGATION METHOD AND APPARATUS BASED ON SALT LEACHING FRACTION, DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUMJuly 2022June 2025Allow3410NoNo
17749860SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PRE-RENDERING HTML CODE OF DYNAMICALLY-GENERATED WEBPAGES USING A BOTMay 2022November 2024Abandon3040YesNo
17775557METHOD AND MODULE CONTROLLER FOR CONTROLLING A POWER PRODUCING SYSTEMMay 2022March 2025Abandon3410NoNo
17762051SELF-LEARNING MANUFACTURING SCHEDULING FOR A FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM AND DEVICEMarch 2022April 2025Abandon3610NoNo
17698715INSIGHT DRIVEN PROGRAMMING TAGS IN AN INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION ENVIRONMENTMarch 2022January 2025Allow3410YesNo
17635246INTERFACE DISPLAY METHOD AND DEVICEFebruary 2022June 2025Allow4050NoNo
17569753TILT MONITORING SYSTEM FOR A MOBILE IRRIGATION SYSTEMJanuary 2022January 2025Allow3610YesNo
17620939Systems and methods of generating a design based on a user search queryDecember 2021May 2025Allow4160YesNo
17550698EFFICIENT DATA ENTRY SYSTEM FOR ELECTRONIC FORMSDecember 2021December 2024Abandon3690NoNo
17541177REINFORCEMENT LEARNING-BASED OPTIMIZATION OF MANUFACTURING LINESDecember 2021April 2025Abandon4020YesNo
17517097RECOVERING WIND POWER FROM REMOTE VEHICLESNovember 2021May 2025Allow4220YesNo
17513351METHOD, DEVICE AND MEDIUM FOR A BUSINESS FUNCTION PAGEOctober 2021May 2025Abandon4320NoNo
17511325VEHICLE AND METHOD OF MANAGING CONTENTS FOR THE SAMEOctober 2021April 2025Abandon4130NoNo
17337074INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUMJune 2021April 2025Abandon4620NoNo
16847522POPULATING VALUES IN A SPREADSHEET USING SEMANTIC CUESApril 2020October 2024Allow54100YesNo
15577765METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR VISUALIZING OR INTERACTING WITH ARRAY DATA USING LIMITED-RESOLUTION DISPLAY DEVICESNovember 2017March 2020Allow2810NoNo
15663924DYNAMIC HIGHLIGHTING OF REPETITIONS IN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTSJuly 2017October 2017Allow300NoNo
15655930WEIGHTED ANNOTATION EVALUATIONJuly 2017April 2018Allow810NoNo
15585121MULTIPLEXED FORMSMay 2017September 2019Allow2910NoNo
15286878SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EXTENDING A VISUALIZATION PLATFORMOctober 2016December 2017Allow1410NoNo
15165561REAL-TIME TEXT LAYOUT CONVERSION CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT ON A MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICEMay 2016June 2018Allow2530NoNo
15163796DYNAMIC HIGHLIGHTING OF REPETITIONS IN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTSMay 2016September 2016Allow310NoNo
14972134DYNAMIC HIGHLIGHTING OF REPETITIONS IN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTSDecember 2015March 2016Allow300NoNo
14951811BROWSER BOOKMARKING FOR MULTIPLE ENVIRONMENTSNovember 2015May 2017Allow1710NoNo
14952715METHOD AND APPARATUS OF CREATING ELECTRONIC FORMS TO INCLUDE INTERNET LIST DATANovember 2015March 2017Allow1530NoNo
14952271DISPLAYING AN APPLICATION IN THE GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE OF A COMPUTER DISPLAYNovember 2015October 2018Allow3520NoNo
14822405Patent Claims Analysis System and MethodAugust 2015July 2016Allow1110NoNo
14641278SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PRESERVING CONDITIONAL STYLES WHEN COPYING AND PASTING BETWEEN APPLICATIONSMarch 2015September 2017Allow3000NoNo
14606567ADAPTIVE CONTENT MANAGEMENTJanuary 2015November 2015Allow910YesNo
14591870SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EXTENDING A VISUALIZATION PLATFORMJanuary 2015June 2016Allow1710NoNo
14452781DYNAMIC HIGHLIGHTING OF REPETITIONS IN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTSAugust 2014September 2017Allow3810NoNo
14151580ELECTRONIC APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING DOCUMENTSJanuary 2014March 2016Allow2610YesNo
13841073SYSTEM, METHOD, SOFTWARE ARRANGEMENT AND COMPUTER-ACCESSIBLE MEDIUM FOR A GENERATOR THAT AUTOMATICALLY IDENTIFIES REGIONS OF INTEREST IN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS FOR TRANSCODINGMarch 2013August 2016Allow4110NoNo
13566054Publishing on Mobile Devices with App BuildingAugust 2012August 2015Allow3620YesNo
13565126RESOURCE-ADAPTIVE CONTENT DELIVERY ON CLIENT DEVICESAugust 2012October 2015Allow3920YesNo
13576669DOCUMENT ANALYSIS APPARATUS, DOCUMENT ANALYSIS METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUMAugust 2012December 2015Allow4010NoNo
13493387CROSS-PLATFORM REPORTING USER INTERFACEJune 2012October 2015Allow4020YesNo
13461866System and Method for Processing Markup Language Templates from Partial Input DataMay 2012June 2015Allow3710NoNo
13461633USER INTERFACE FOR REORDERING THUMBNAILSMay 2012December 2014Allow3220YesNo
13450324METHOD AND SYSTEM USING HEURISTICS IN PERFORMING BATCH UPDATES OF RECORDSApril 2012October 2014Allow3010YesNo
13434610EDITING A FRAGMENTED DOCUMENTMarch 2012December 2016Allow5620NoYes
13396902METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING A USER INTERFACE HAVING A GUIDED TASK FLOW AMONG A PLURALITY OF DEVICESFebruary 2012November 2015Allow4530NoNo
13396592Song Lyric Processing With User InteractionFebruary 2012December 2014Allow3430YesNo
13390433SERVICE DISTRIBUTION DEVICE AND SERVICE DISPLAY DEVICEFebruary 2012February 2015Allow3640YesNo
13313515EDITING A FRAGMENTED DOCUMENTDecember 2011March 2017Allow6050YesYes
13267650SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EXTENDING A VISUALIZATION PLATFORMOctober 2011November 2014Allow3720YesNo
13267070APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING APPLICATION IN WIRELESS TERMINALOctober 2011December 2015Allow5150YesNo
13095182INSERTION POINT BUNGEE SPACE TOOLApril 2011June 2015Allow5020NoNo
12823812LAYOUT-DESIGN SUPPORT SYSTEM AND LAYOUT-DESIGN SUPPORT PROGRAMJune 2010July 2015Allow6020NoNo
12511112METHOD AND APPARATUS OF CREATING ELECTRONIC FORMS TO INCLUDE INTERNET LIST DATAJuly 2009August 2015Allow6080NoNo
12409555BUILDING A STANDARDIZED WEB FORMJune 2009June 2015Allow6060NoYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner VELEZ-LOPEZ, MARIO M.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
2
Examiner Affirmed
0
(0.0%)
Examiner Reversed
2
(100.0%)
Reversal Percentile
92.6%
Higher than average

What This Means

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.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
4
Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(50.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(50.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
76.4%
Higher than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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.

Strategic Recommendations

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 VELEZ-LOPEZ, MARIO M - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner VELEZ-LOPEZ, MARIO M works in Art Unit 2118 and has examined 56 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 83.9%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 36 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner VELEZ-LOPEZ, MARIO M's allowance rate of 83.9% places them in the 53% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by VELEZ-LOPEZ, MARIO M receive 2.45 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 84% 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 VELEZ-LOPEZ, MARIO M is 36 months. This places the examiner in the 16% 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 +6.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by VELEZ-LOPEZ, MARIO M. This interview benefit is in the 34% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 22.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 19% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 31.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 37% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

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 4% 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 60.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 30% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 1% 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 Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 8% percentile). This examiner rarely makes examiner's amendments compared to other examiners. You should expect to make all necessary claim amendments yourself through formal amendment practice.

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 8% percentile). This examiner rarely issues Quayle actions compared to other examiners. Allowances typically 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 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.