Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18623900 | COMPUTING NETWORK FOR IMPLEMENTING A CONTEXTUAL NAVIGATION AND ACTION USER EXPERIENCE FRAMEWORK AND FLATTENING DEEP INFORMATION HIERARCHIES | April 2024 | May 2024 | Allow | 2 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18170417 | SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR REMOTE AUDITIONS WITH PACE SETTING PERFORMANCES | February 2023 | April 2024 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17989618 | INTERACTION METHOD AND APPARATUS BASED ON ELECTRONIC MAP, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT | November 2022 | June 2024 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17949263 | Visual recorder for demonstrations of web-based software applications | September 2022 | February 2024 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17896667 | SMART MAPPING DISPLAY ADJUSTMENT | August 2022 | June 2024 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17894688 | ERGONOMIC LAYOUT OPTIMIZATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS | August 2022 | March 2024 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17893361 | Content generation using target content derived modeling and unsupervised language modeling | August 2022 | January 2024 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17875512 | Text Summarization Method and Text Summarization System | July 2022 | October 2024 | Abandon | 27 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17815211 | CUSTOM DISPLAY POST PROCESSING IN SPEECH RECOGNITION | July 2022 | March 2024 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17713849 | UNIVERSAL SERVICE INTERFACES FOR WEBSITES | April 2022 | May 2024 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17706954 | INTERACTIVE CONTACT CENTER MENU TRAVERSAL VIA TEXT STREAM INTERACTION | March 2022 | June 2024 | Allow | 26 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17689697 | IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS THAT DISPLAYS USAGE STATUS OF TOUCH PANEL | March 2022 | July 2024 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17684880 | MACHINE LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES FOR STRUCTURING UNSTRUCTURED DATA | March 2022 | August 2024 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17548302 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR VISUALIZING ANALYTICS TAGS ASSOCIATED WITH PAGE ELEMENTS OF A WEB PAGE | December 2021 | April 2024 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17456737 | TEXT GENERATION FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS USING NATURAL LANGUAGE MODELING AND PROGRAMMABLE TEMPLATING LANGUAGE | November 2021 | February 2024 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17380902 | System and Method for Creating Customized Insurance-Related Forms Using Computing Devices | July 2021 | April 2024 | Allow | 33 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17368155 | Generating Action Elements Suggesting Content For Ongoing Tasks | July 2021 | January 2024 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17347183 | Charging System, Heat Dissipation Apparatus, and Control Method Thereof | June 2021 | August 2024 | Abandon | 38 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17299765 | ACCELEROMETER-BASED OBJECT POSE DETERMINATION | June 2021 | August 2024 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17096695 | METHOD, APPARATUS, AND SYSTEM FOR DISCOVERING PRIVATE DATA USING CONFIGURABLE RULES | November 2020 | April 2024 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17000103 | Facilitating Disparate Convenience Services Via a Common User Interface | August 2020 | June 2024 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16760587 | MULTI-WINDOW DISPLAY INTERFACE WITH HISTORICAL TASK BAR | April 2020 | April 2024 | Allow | 47 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15068980 | METHODS OF USING A WRAP DESCRIPTOR TO DISPLAY A SEQUENCE OF CARDS ON A DISPLAY DEVICE | March 2016 | December 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MERCADO VARGAS, ARIEL.
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 MERCADO VARGAS, ARIEL works in Art Unit 2144 and has examined 10 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 60.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 38 months.
Examiner MERCADO VARGAS, ARIEL's allowance rate of 60.0% places them in the 20% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by MERCADO VARGAS, ARIEL receive 2.80 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 82% 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.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by MERCADO VARGAS, ARIEL is 38 months. This places the examiner in the 29% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +25.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MERCADO VARGAS, ARIEL. This interview benefit is in the 72% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 18.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 18% 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.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 40.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 61% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 48% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 90% 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's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 10% 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 11% percentile). This examiner rarely issues Quayle actions compared to other examiners. Allowances typically 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.