Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16902931 | MICRO FRONTENDS WITH MODEL-BASED STATE | June 2020 | August 2021 | Allow | 14 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16876214 | Menu Screen Display Method and Menu Screen Display Device | May 2020 | September 2021 | Allow | 16 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16658051 | DEFINITION OF A GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE DASHBOARD CREATED WITH MANUALLY INPUT CODE AND USER SELECTIONS | October 2019 | October 2021 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16598544 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INTELLIGENT ADHERENCE OR CONFORMANCE ANALYSIS COACHING | October 2019 | October 2021 | Allow | 25 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 16543611 | DATA PROCESSING METHOD, DATA PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND RECORDING MEDIUM WITH DATA PROCESSING PROGRAM RECORDED THEREON | August 2019 | October 2021 | Allow | 26 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16521928 | NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUM WITH FUNCTIONALITY IN RESPONSE TO AN OBJECT AND CHANGE IN CAPACITANCE | July 2019 | April 2020 | Allow | 8 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16235643 | SCOPING THE LIFETIME OF PERSONAL DEVICES CONNECTED TO COMMUNAL COMPUTING DEVICES | December 2018 | August 2021 | Allow | 32 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16201882 | INTERACTIVE VIRTUAL INTERFACE | November 2018 | July 2021 | Allow | 31 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16141305 | SYSTEM FOR GENERATING MULTIPLE-COMMAND MACROS | September 2018 | March 2023 | Abandon | 54 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15642508 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SHARING CONTENT IN VIDEOCONFERENCING | July 2017 | May 2022 | Abandon | 58 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 15450475 | PERSONALIZED PRESENTATION OF CONTENT ON A COMPUTING DEVICE | March 2017 | August 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15329487 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SETTING BACKGROUND OF UI CONTROL, AND TERMINAL | January 2017 | November 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15258854 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR VISUALLY INDICATING VALUE CHANGES IN A BUILDING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | September 2016 | November 2024 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14159109 | TABLE TOP GESTURES FOR MIMICKING MOUSE CONTROL | January 2014 | November 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13781835 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ITEM INQUIRY AND INFORMATION PRESENTATION VIA STANDARD COMMUNICATION PATHS | March 2013 | May 2014 | Allow | 15 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12559605 | VISUALIZATION OF REAL-TIME SOCIAL DATA INFORMATICS | September 2009 | February 2013 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12404496 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR RESTORING AN OCCLUDED WINDOW IN APPLICATION SHARING SOFTWARE | March 2009 | January 2012 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12333698 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INTERACTION BETWEEN USERS OF AN ONLINE COMMUNITY | December 2008 | March 2013 | Allow | 51 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12330006 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ON-DEMAND NARRATION OF A CUSTOMIZED STORY | December 2008 | August 2012 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12327931 | ASYNCHRONOUS IMMERSIVE COMMUNICATIONS IN A VIRTUAL UNIVERSE | December 2008 | April 2012 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12328298 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT PRESERVATION BASED ON AUTOMATED ITEM REDUCTION | December 2008 | August 2012 | Allow | 45 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12328269 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ITEM INQUIRY AND INFORMATION PRESENTATION VIA STANDARD COMMUNICATION PATHS | December 2008 | January 2013 | Allow | 50 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 12119908 | CONTEXT BASED SCRIPT GENERATION | May 2008 | May 2014 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10766673 | Method, system, and program for navigating files | January 2004 | April 2014 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ELL, MATTHEW.
With a 20.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is below the USPTO average, indicating that appeals face more challenges here than typical.
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, 14.3% 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.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner ELL, MATTHEW works in Art Unit 2171 and has examined 24 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 79.2%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 44 months.
Examiner ELL, MATTHEW's allowance rate of 79.2% places them in the 50% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by ELL, MATTHEW receive 3.46 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 91% 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 ELL, MATTHEW is 44 months. This places the examiner in the 15% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +16.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ELL, MATTHEW. This interview benefit is in the 57% 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, 22.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 31% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 23.1% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 32% 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.
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 6% 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 28.6% of appeals filed. This is in the 4% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 2% 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's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 11% 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 13% 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.