USPTO Examiner LEVEL BARBARA HENRY - Art Unit 2142

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18657768RHYME ENGINE FOR LITERARY WORKS WITH RHYME OR RHYTHMMay 2024April 2025Allow1110NoNo
18600118ENHANCED INTEGRATION OF SPREADSHEETS WITH EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTSMarch 2024May 2025Abandon1410YesNo
18503131Methods and Systems for Providing Selective Multi-Way Replication and Atomization of Cell Blocks and Other Elements in Spreadsheets and PresentationsNovember 2023November 2024Allow1200YesNo
18476060USING MACHINE LEARNING TO PREDICT PERFORMANCE OF SECURE DOCUMENTSSeptember 2023September 2024Allow1210YesNo
18449397BROWSER-BASED NAVIGATION SUGGESTIONS FOR TASK COMPLETIONAugust 2023March 2025Allow1920YesNo
18227359AUTOMATED DOCUMENT HIGHLIGHTING IN A DIGITAL MANAGEMENT PLATFORMJuly 2023February 2025Allow1820YesNo
18266735INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, METHOD, PROGRAM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM FOR ASSISTING IN EXAMINATION OF IMAGE FOR PRINTINGJune 2023June 2025Allow2410NoNo
18316213REDUCING INTERFERENCE BETWEEN TWO TEXTSMay 2023September 2024Allow1631YesNo
18117222GUARDRAILS FOR EFFICIENT PROCESSING AND ERROR PREVENTION IN GENERATING SUGGESTED MESSAGESMarch 2023July 2024Allow1710YesNo
18106802STYLE TRANSFERFebruary 2023February 2024Allow1230YesNo
18009592AUTOMATIC DATA EXTRACTIONDecember 2022June 2025Allow3120NoNo
17993959METHOD OF PUBLISHING A COMPUTER FILE INCLUDING INTERACTIVE DATA AND A METHOD OF MANAGING SAID DATANovember 2022February 2025Abandon2710NoNo
17833247TABLE COLUMN OPERATIONS FOR SPREADSHEETSJune 2022August 2024Allow2730YesNo
17657573GENERATING AND UTILIZING DIGITAL MEDIA CLIPS BASED ON CONTEXTUAL METADATA FROM DIGITAL ENVIRONMENTSMarch 2022September 2024Allow3040YesNo
17653126SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MULTI-DIMENSIONAL KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATIONMarch 2022November 2024Abandon3320NoYes
17670662METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR GENERATING TRAINING DATA FOR COMPUTER-EXECUTABLE MACHINE LEARNING ALGORITHM WITHIN A COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED CROWDSOURCE ENVIRONMENTFebruary 2022May 2025Allow3910YesNo
17556218DEEP EMBEDDING LEARNING MODELS WITH MIMICRY EFFECTDecember 2021June 2025Allow4210YesNo
17619723LEARNING DEVICE, LEARNING METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUMDecember 2021June 2025Abandon4210YesNo
17457996SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FEDERATED LEARNING OPTIMIZATION VIA CLUSTER FEEDBACKDecember 2021March 2025Allow3900NoNo
17456898DOMAIN ADAPTATIONNovember 2021April 2025Allow4010YesNo
17506161MACHINE LEARNING MODEL SCALING SYSTEM WITH ENERGY EFFICIENT NETWORK DATA TRANSFER FOR POWER AWARE HARDWAREOctober 2021May 2025Allow4310YesNo
17463673TESTING MODELS IN DATA PIPELINESeptember 2021April 2025Allow4310YesNo
17433724METHOD, SYSTEM, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR CONTROLLING GENETIC LEARNING FOR PREDICTIVE MODELS USING PREDEFINED STRATEGIESAugust 2021March 2025Allow4310NoNo
17445620System and method for detecting anomalies in imagesAugust 2021March 2025Allow4310YesNo
17407427SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PRINTING WITH IMPROVED CONTENTAugust 2021January 2025Abandon4130NoNo
17398296METHOD AND APPARATUS WITH NEURAL NETWORK OPERATION USING SPARSIFICATIONAugust 2021May 2025Allow4520YesNo
17444773SYSTEM, TRAINING DEVICE, TRAINING METHOD, AND PREDICTING DEVICEAugust 2021May 2025Abandon4510NoNo
17444548STOCHASTIC COMPILATION OF MULTIPLEXED QUANTUM ROTATIONSAugust 2021April 2025Allow4410NoNo
17382121Noisy Concurrent Training for Training DNNs Efficiently Under Noisy Labels in a Collaborative Learning FrameworkJuly 2021April 2025Abandon4410NoNo
17419940METHOD FOR TRAINING AND OPERATING AN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK CAPABLE OF MULTITASKING, ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK CAPABLE OF MULTITASKING, AND DEVICEJune 2021December 2024Allow4110NoNo
17357602Edge Device Machine LearningJune 2021June 2025Allow4720YesNo
17350537GENERALIZED MACHINE LEARNING APPLICATION TO ESTIMATE WHOLESALE REFINED PRODUCT PRICE SEMI-ELASTICITIESJune 2021February 2025Abandon4410NoNo
17334613DATA-AWARE MODEL PRUNING FOR NEURAL NETWORKSMay 2021January 2025Allow4410YesNo
17244947METHOD FOR EVALUATING MECHANICAL STATE OF HIGH-VOLTAGE SHUNT REACTOR BASED ON VIBRATION CHARACTERISTICSApril 2021October 2024Allow4210YesNo
17244480PARAMETERIZED NEIGHBORHOOD MEMORY ADAPTATIONApril 2021September 2024Allow4010YesNo
17204670METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR CROSS-DOMAIN FEW-SHOT CLASSIFICATIONMarch 2021September 2024Allow4210YesNo
17249051PROVIDING ENHANCED FUNCTIONALITY IN AN INTERACTIVE ELECTRONIC TECHNICAL MANUALFebruary 2021January 2025Abandon4760NoNo
17163513NEURAL NETWORK UNITJanuary 2021November 2024Allow4610NoNo
17256855A NEURAL NETWORK QUANTIZATION DATA PROCESSING METHOD, DEVICE, COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND STORAGE MEDIUMDecember 2020August 2024Allow4310NoNo
15734365DATA ANALYSIS SYSTEM AND DATA ANALYSIS METHODDecember 2020March 2025Abandon5130YesNo
17066916EFFICIENT SYNTHESIS OF OPTIMAL MULTI-QUBIT CLIFFORD CIRCUITSOctober 2020January 2025Allow5121YesNo
15891563NOVEL ARABIC SPELL CHECKING ERROR MODELFebruary 2018October 2019Allow2110YesNo
15025513METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SELECTING ENCODING FORMAT FOR READING TARGET DOCUMENTMarch 2016March 2019Allow3620NoNo
14987261CONVERSION OF A PRESENTATION TO DARWIN INFORMATION TYPING ARCHITECTURE (DITA)January 2016January 2018Allow2410NoNo
14202718CONVERSION OF A PRESENTATION TO DARWIN INFORMATION TYPING ARCHITECTURE (DITA)March 2014September 2015Allow1910NoNo
14090184DISCOVERING RELATIONSHIPS IN TABULAR DATANovember 2013October 2016Allow3540YesNo
13933525APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR GENERATING INSPECTION REPORT(S)July 2013May 2018Allow5950NoNo
13932435Discovering Relationships in Tabular DataJuly 2013August 2016Allow3730NoNo
13930324APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD THEREOF, AND STORAGE MEDIUM THAT DETERMINE A LAYOUT IMAGE FROM A GENERATED PLURALITY OF LAYOUT IMAGES BY EVALUATING SELECTED TARGET IMAGESJune 2013March 2018Allow5650YesNo
13658069CONVERSION OF A PRESENTATION TO DARWIN INFORMATION TYPING ARCHITECTURE (DITA)October 2012September 2015Allow3510NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner LEVEL, BARBARA HENRY.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
1
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
2.0%
Lower 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, 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.

Strategic Recommendations

Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner LEVEL, BARBARA HENRY - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner LEVEL, BARBARA HENRY works in Art Unit 2142 and has examined 48 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 81.2%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 41 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner LEVEL, BARBARA HENRY's allowance rate of 81.2% places them in the 46% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by LEVEL, BARBARA HENRY receive 1.77 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 53% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by LEVEL, BARBARA HENRY is 41 months. This places the examiner in the 6% 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 +25.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LEVEL, BARBARA HENRY. This interview benefit is in the 76% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 32.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 59% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 25.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 25% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 96% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 9% 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 10% 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:

  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.
  • 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.