USPTO Examiner LUDWIG MATTHEW J - Art Unit 2171

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17073061SYSTEM AND/OR METHOD FOR AN AUTONOMOUS LINKED MANAGED SEMANTIC MODEL BASED KNOWLEDGE GRAPH GENERATION FRAMEWORKOctober 2020February 2024Allow4030YesNo
16975759PROVISION OF DIFFERENT CONTENT PAGES BASED ON VARYING USER INTERACTIONS WITH A SINGLE CONTENT ITEMAugust 2020September 2024Allow4940YesNo
16708803SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR VALIDATING AND CORRECTING AUTOMATED MEDICAL IMAGE ANNOTATIONSDecember 2019July 2023Allow4360NoNo
15975511Information Extraction and Annotation Systems and Methods for DocumentsMay 2018April 2019Allow1110NoNo
15339357METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING CONTENT TO USERSOctober 2016September 2018Allow2210NoNo
15089759IDENTIFYING SYNTAXES OF DISPARATE COMPONENTS OF A COMPUTER-TO-COMPUTER MESSAGEApril 2016September 2018Allow3020NoNo
15077441DYNAMIC WEBPAGE IMAGEMarch 2016February 2018Allow2310NoNo
14320362APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATICALLY GENERATING VISUAL ANNOTATION BASED ON VISUAL LANGUAGEJune 2014November 2016Allow2910NoNo
14184084TERMINAL DEVICE FOR DOWNLOADING AND INSTALLING AN APPLICATION AND METHOD THEREOFFebruary 2014September 2018Allow5560NoNo
14066720USER INFLUENCED ASYNCHRONOUS MODULE DEFINITION LOADEROctober 2013March 2016Allow2910NoNo
14021509INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUMSeptember 2013September 2017Allow4830NoNo
13972543METHOD FOR FILTERING DATA TO GENERATE A BALANCE SHEETAugust 2013March 2019Allow6050NoYes
13784029USER INFLUENCED ASYNCHRONOUS MODULE DEFINITION LOADERMarch 2013January 2016Allow3420NoNo
13760708AUTOMATED GENERATION OF STRUCTURED ELECTRONIC REPRESENTATIONS OF USER-FILLABLE FORMSFebruary 2013July 2015Allow3020NoNo
13652192METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING CONTENT TO USERSOctober 2012May 2016Allow4330NoNo
13589440INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUMAugust 2012April 2019Allow6030NoNo
13492386Digital Document Editing Method, Digital Document Editing Program and Digital Document Editing ApparatusJune 2012May 2015Allow3510NoNo
13471342SYSTEM, METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR DETERMINING INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH AN EXTRACTED PORTION OF CONTENTMay 2012October 2014Allow2910NoNo
13312761EDITION GRID LAYOUTDecember 2011August 2013Allow2020NoNo
13237490TERMINAL DEVICE FOR DOWNLOADING AND INSTALLING AN APPLICATION AND METHOD THEREOFSeptember 2011October 2014Allow3720NoNo
13233508METHOD FOR INTEGRATING REALLY SIMPLE SYNDICATION DOCUMENTSSeptember 2011October 2013Allow2510NoNo
13159145DIGITAL CONTENT ENHANCEMENT PLATFORMJune 2011December 2012Allow1800YesNo
13151972DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND CONTROL METHODS AND COMPUTER PROGRAMS THEREFORJune 2011October 2013Allow2820NoNo
13079447MULTI-DIMENSIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PARALLEL CONTENT DISPLAY ON A SINGLE SCREEN FOR MULTIPLE VIEWERSApril 2011June 2013Allow2720NoNo
13078783INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS FOR DISPLAYING DOCUMENT INFORMATION, ITS PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUMApril 2011February 2014Allow3420NoNo
13037329ANNOTATION STRUCTURE TYPE DETERMINATIONFebruary 2011March 2017Allow6040NoNo
13010037METHOD, SYSTEM AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR PROVIDING DIGITAL CONTENTJanuary 2011April 2015Allow5120NoNo
13006373MOBILE TERMINAL AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING MOBILE TERMINALJanuary 2011April 2013Allow2720NoNo
12984478METHODS, DEVICES, AND MEDIUMS ASSOCIATED WITH DISPLAYING AN ELECTRONIC PANEJanuary 2011November 2014Allow4630NoNo
12911886METHOD, SYSTEM AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR PROVIDING DIGITAL CONTENTOctober 2010March 2015Allow5210NoNo
12911891METHOD, SYSTEM AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR PROVIDING DIGITAL CONTENTOctober 2010February 2015Allow5220NoNo
12795680AUTOMATED DOCUMENT FORMATTING TOOLJune 2010May 2014Allow4720NoNo
12790429METHOD, SYSTEM AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR PROVIDING DIGITAL CONTENTMay 2010August 2012Allow2610NoNo
12789915Method and System for Deriving and Matching Local Formatting in an Electronic DocumentMay 2010December 2014Allow5430NoNo
12790419METHOD, SYSTEM AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR PROVIDING DIGITAL CONTENTMay 2010August 2012Allow2710NoNo
12638043ENABLING ACCESS TO DATA FILES UNSUPPORTED BY A COMPUTING DEVICEDecember 2009October 2012Allow3410NoNo
12630133REMOTE BATCH EDITING OF FORMATTED TEXT VIA AN HTML EDITORDecember 2009June 2012Allow3010NoNo
12624596IDENTIFYING SYNTAXES OF DISPARATE COMPONENTS OF A COMPUTER-TO-COMPUTER MESSAGENovember 2009December 2015Allow6020NoYes
12618015SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRANSLATING INSURANCE-RELATED DATANovember 2009December 2012Allow3720NoNo
12616423SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO RESIZE DOCUMENT CONTENTNovember 2009October 2012Allow3520NoNo
12615684Systems, Methods and Computer Readable Media For Creating and Updating Electronic DocumentsNovember 2009August 2013Allow4520NoNo
12614644LAYOUT EDITING APPARATUS AND LAYOUT EDITING METHODNovember 2009July 2012Allow3220NoNo
12524665ENCODING/DECODING APPARATUS, METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAMJuly 2009June 2012Allow3400NoNo
12324736PUBLICATION LAYOUT SYSTEMNovember 2008February 2012Allow3810NoNo
12240395DIFFERENTIAL DYNAMIC CONTENT DELIVERY WITH A PRESENTER-ALTERABLE SESSION COPY OF A USER PROFILESeptember 2008February 2011Allow2910NoNo
12207430SECURE INTER-MODULE COMMUNICATION MECHANISMSeptember 2008September 2011Allow3700NoNo
12140904COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED SYSTEM FOR CREATING A PUBLICATION AND METHOD THEREOFJune 2008October 2011Allow4020NoNo
12100438DYNAMICALLY SELECTING PROPERTIES TO DISPLAY IN A TABLE BASED USER INTERFACEApril 2008November 2011Allow4310NoNo
12056233SYSTEM FOR VALIDATING A DOCUMENT CONFORMING TO A FIRST SCHEMA WITH RESPECT TO A SECOND SCHEMAMarch 2008April 2011Allow3700NoNo
12053673MARKING AND ANNOTATING ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTSMarch 2008May 2012Allow4920NoNo
12042975INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHODMarch 2008January 2012Allow4610NoNo
12006716Systems and methods for identifying claims associated with electronic textJanuary 2008October 2013Allow6030NoNo
11965114SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING MULTI-MODAL COMMUNICATION WITHIN A WORKGROUPDecember 2007March 2013Allow6030NoNo
11845538SECURE INTER-MODULE COMMUNICATION MECHANISMAugust 2007October 2011Allow5010NoNo
11779481APPARATUS, METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR TRANSFORMING DATAJuly 2007September 2012Allow6030NoNo
11803930SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MEDIA STREAM INDEXING AND SYNCHRONIZATIONMay 2007June 2011Allow4920NoNo
11673078METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR INCLUDING CUSTOMIZED CDA ATTRIBUTES FOR SEARCHING AND RETRIEVALFebruary 2007December 2011Allow5840NoNo
11670944MULTIUSER LEARNING SYSTEMFebruary 2007August 2011Allow5420NoYes
11465736SMALL FORM FACTOR WEB BROWSINGAugust 2006March 2011Allow5520NoNo
11444601EVENT-BASED PARSER FOR MARKUP LANGUAGE FILEMay 2006December 2010Allow5420NoNo
11416088METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING CONDITIONAL CUSTOMIZATION FOR GENERATING A WEB SITEMay 2006October 2011Allow6030NoNo
11386351METHOD, SYSTEM AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR SEARCHING AN ELECTRONIC VERSION OF A PAPERMarch 2006August 2009Abandon4180NoNo
10962251SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INTEGRATING SPREADSHEETS AND WORD PROCESSING TABLESOctober 2004July 2008Allow4530YesNo
10961547SPREADSHEET FIELDS IN TEXTOctober 2004December 2009Allow6060YesNo
10948798METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CREATING A DIGITAL DOCUMENT ALTERED IN RESPONSE TO AT LEAST ONE EVENTSeptember 2004March 2008Allow4230YesNo
10949684Creating annotations of transient computer objectsSeptember 2004April 2014Allow6060NoYes
10940985LAYOUT SYSTEM, LAYOUT PROGRAM, AND LAYOUT METHODSeptember 2004August 2008Allow4740NoNo
10940729METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DISPLAYING MULTIPLE CONTEXTS IN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTSSeptember 2004September 2008Allow4840NoNo
10915554SYSTEM FOR RETRIEVING AND PRINTING NETWORK DOCUMENTSAugust 2004March 2006Allow1920NoNo
10901240CLIENT DEPENDENT IMAGE PROCESSING FOR BROWSER-BASED IMAGE DOCUMENT VIEWER FOR HANDHELD CLIENT DEVICESJuly 2004December 2009Allow6080YesYes
10901275METHODS, APPARATUS AND COMPUTER PROGRAMS FOR CHARACTERIZING WEB RESOURCESJuly 2004November 2008Allow5240NoNo
10502247SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HIERARCHICAL LAYOUT SPECIALIZATIONJuly 2004December 2007Allow4130NoNo
10887430DIFFERENTIAL DYNAMIC DELIVERY OF CONTENT ACCORDING TO USER EXPRESSIONS OF INTERESTJuly 2004December 2011Allow6030YesYes
10883484METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR CONVERTING MARKUP LANGUAGE DATA TO AN INTERMEDIATE REPRESENTATIONJuly 2004January 2011Allow6020NoYes
10884064SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A TOOL PANE WITHIN A MARKUP LANGUAGE DOCUMENTJuly 2004May 2010Allow6060NoNo
10877792METHOD AND A SYSTEM FOR DISPLAYING INFORMATION, AND A DEVICEJune 2004April 2009Allow5850NoNo
10875174COMPUTER USER INTERFACE ARCHITECTURE THAT SAVES A USER'S NON-LINEAR NAVIGATION HISTORY AND INTELLIGENTLY MAINTAINS THAT HISTORYJune 2004May 2008Allow4730NoNo
10820028WEB PAGE CREATION APPARATUS, WEB PAGE CREATION METHOD, WEB PAGE CREATION PROGRAM, AND RECORDING MEDIUMApril 2004August 2008Allow5240NoNo
10798121FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE CONTENT SYNCHRONIZING SOFTWAREMarch 2004February 2011Allow6070NoNo
10790002DOCUMENT PAGINATION BASED ON HARD BREAKS AND ACTIVE FORMATTING TAGSMarch 2004February 2007Allow3520YesNo
10787111APPARATUS, METHOD AND PROGRAM FOR SUPPORTING A REVIEWFebruary 2004May 2007Allow3820NoNo
10785410DOCUMENT STRUCTURE INSPECTION METHOD AND APPARATUSFebruary 2004March 2009Allow6040NoNo
10756107DIFFERENTIAL DYNAMIC CONTENT DELIVERY WITH A PRESENTER-ALTERABLE SESSION COPY OF A USER PROFILEJanuary 2004June 2008Allow5340NoNo
10753321COMBINED ALARM LOG FILE REPORTING USING XML ALARM TOKEN TAGGINGJanuary 2004February 2008Allow4940YesNo
10726708DOCUMENT PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHODDecember 2003April 2009Allow6060NoNo
10727694QUALITY ENHANCEMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATIONDecember 2003August 2009Allow6060YesNo
10727276REPRESENTING NON-STRUCTURED FEATURES IN A WELL FORMED DOCUMENTDecember 2003March 2009Allow6040NoNo
10712238SERIALIZATION AND PRESERVATION OF OBJECTSNovember 2003November 2006Allow3610NoNo
10690214SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR WEB SITE EDITING INTERFACESOctober 2003September 2010Allow6040NoYes
10668664METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DERIVING AND MATCHING LOCAL FORMATTING IN AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTSeptember 2003April 2007Abandon4330NoNo
10662799METHOD FOR VALIDATING A DOCUMENT CONFORMING TO A FIRST SCHEMA WITH RESPECT TO A SECOND SCHEMASeptember 2003March 2008Allow5440NoNo
10631119INTEGRATED DECORATIVE PANELSJuly 2003September 2008Allow6060YesNo
10612786DATA PROCESSING AND DIFFERENCE COMPUTATION FOR GENERATING ADDRESSING INFORMATIONJuly 2003April 2007Abandon4620NoNo
10610697SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING MULTIMEDIA INFORMATION MANAGEMENTJuly 2003June 2007Allow4720NoYes
10408378PREVENTING EXECUTION OF PROGRAMS THAT ARE EMBEDDED IN EMAIL MESSAGESApril 2003November 2009Allow6080NoNo
10406180HYPERVIDEO: INFORMATION RETRIEVAL AT USER REQUESTApril 2003January 2009Allow6060NoYes
10404927MULTIMEDIA DOCUMENT SHARING METHOD AND APPARATUSMarch 2003November 2009Allow6060NoNo
10305544METHOD, SYSTEM, AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM FOR FILTERING HARMFUL HTML IN AN ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTNovember 2002July 2007Allow5540YesNo
10244221APPARATUS FOR COLLECTING INFORMATION AND MANAGING ACCESS RIGHTSSeptember 2002October 2008Allow6061NoNo
10060581DEVICE MONITORING VIA GENERALIZED MARKUP LANGUAGEJanuary 2002April 2009Allow6080NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner LUDWIG, MATTHEW J.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
4
Examiner Affirmed
2
(50.0%)
Examiner Reversed
2
(50.0%)
Reversal Percentile
72.0%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 50.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is above the USPTO average, indicating that appeals have better success here than typical.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
11
Allowed After Appeal Filing
6
(54.5%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
5
(45.5%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
85.5%
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, 54.5% 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 LUDWIG, MATTHEW J - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner LUDWIG, MATTHEW J works in Art Unit 2171 and has examined 114 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 97.4%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 47 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner LUDWIG, MATTHEW J's allowance rate of 97.4% places them in the 88% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by LUDWIG, MATTHEW J receive 2.92 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 81% 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 LUDWIG, MATTHEW J is 47 months. This places the examiner in the 11% 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 +3.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LUDWIG, MATTHEW J. This interview benefit is in the 25% 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, 29.5% 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 22.4% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 31% 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, 166.7% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 92% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 73.3% of appeals filed. This is in the 62% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 45.5% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows above-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. The mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) provides an opportunity for reconsideration.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 81.2% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 85% 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 24.6% of allowed cases (in the 99% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 14% 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.
  • Request pre-appeal conferences: PACs are highly effective with this examiner. Before filing a full appeal brief, request a PAC to potentially resolve issues without full PTAB review.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.
  • Examiner cooperation: This examiner frequently makes examiner's amendments to place applications in condition for allowance. If you are close to allowance, the examiner may help finalize the claims.

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.