Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17043329 | EVALUATION SYSTEM, EVALUATION METHOD, AND PROGRAM FOR EVALUATION | September 2020 | July 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17043309 | PREDICTION MODEL CONSTRUCTION DEVICE, PREDICTION MODEL CONSTRUCTION METHOD AND PREDICTION MODEL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM RECORDING MEDIUM | September 2020 | September 2024 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16528462 | OBJECT INTERACTION VIA EXTENDED REALITY | July 2019 | July 2024 | Allow | 59 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16511037 | Personalized Multimedia Autographing System | July 2019 | September 2020 | Abandon | 14 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16408247 | METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND MEDIA FOR TRACKING CONTENT ITEMS | May 2019 | September 2022 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16250344 | SPLIT TESTING ASSOCIATED WITH DETECTION OF USER INTERFACE (UI) MODIFICATIONS | January 2019 | February 2024 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16207188 | System and Processes for Facilitating Generation and Manipulation of Custom Products | December 2018 | January 2021 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16051931 | ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE ELECTRONIC DEVICE | August 2018 | October 2022 | Abandon | 51 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16045564 | Presentation of Layered Content Documents in Multiscreen Systems | July 2018 | February 2021 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15927823 | Manipulating Virtual Camera Dolly in Multi-Dimensional Space to Produce Visual Effect | March 2018 | May 2021 | Abandon | 37 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15751011 | METHOD AND DEVICE OF TAGGING LINKS INCLUDED IN A SCREENSHOT OF WEBPAGE | February 2018 | December 2020 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15690456 | Method of extracting text in text layer, method of providing translated webcomic, and computer device for performing the same | August 2017 | December 2019 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15659115 | PLAYBACK OF MEDIA CONTENT INLINE WITHIN A SCROLLABLE MIXED MULTIMEDIA DISPLAY BACKGROUND | July 2017 | January 2020 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15594099 | SYSTEMS, METHODS AND ARTICLES TO AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFORM DOCUMENTS TRANSMITTED BETWEEN SENDERS AND RECIPIENTS | May 2017 | January 2021 | Abandon | 44 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15410519 | Document Viewing System and Non-Transitory Computer Readable Recording Medium | January 2017 | July 2020 | Abandon | 41 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 15275138 | Arrangement of Documents In a Document Feed | September 2016 | February 2021 | Abandon | 53 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15213044 | POSITIONING CONTENT IN COMPUTER-GENERATED DISPLAYS BASED ON AVAILABLE DISPLAY SPACE | July 2016 | September 2020 | Abandon | 50 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14929520 | DISPLAY APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR SUMMARIZING OF DOCUMENT | November 2015 | January 2020 | Abandon | 50 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 14681911 | CONTENT RENDITION GENERATION AND CONTROL | April 2015 | April 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 14598849 | CONTENT DISPLAY SYNCHRONIZED FOR TRACKED E-READING PROGRESS | January 2015 | March 2017 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14285477 | DISTRIBUTED CONTENT BROWSING SYSTEM USING TRANSFERRED HARDWARE-INDEPENDENT GRAPHICS COMMANDS | May 2014 | July 2021 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14249381 | DISPLAYABLE CONTENT INSERTION SYSTEM | April 2014 | September 2016 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14346674 | SYSTEMS, METHODS AND ARTICLES TO AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFORM DOCUMENTS TRANSMITTED BETWEEN SENDERS AND RECIPIENTS | March 2014 | December 2020 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14178629 | DEVICE FOR DISPLAYING LIST OF ONE OR MORE PIECES OF AREA INFORMATION | February 2014 | February 2017 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14176482 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR ENRICHING A MULTIMEDIA CONTENT DEFINED BY A TIMELINE AND BY A CHRONOLOGICAL TEXT DESCRIPTION | February 2014 | August 2016 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14098186 | MOBILE TERMINAL AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF | December 2013 | September 2016 | Abandon | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14090230 | SUBJECT-MATTER ANALYSIS OF TABULAR DATA | November 2013 | February 2017 | Abandon | 39 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 14065308 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MAPPING A SITE ON A WIDE AREA NETWORK | October 2013 | March 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14054570 | Efficient Manipulation of Surfaces in Multi-Dimensional Space Using Energy Agents | October 2013 | February 2022 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13869646 | PRODUCT SPECIFICATION GENERATION | April 2013 | April 2020 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13802365 | Dynamic Resource Refresh | March 2013 | December 2020 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13583488 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR THE REMOTE CONTROL OF A DISPLAY SCREEN | November 2012 | December 2020 | Abandon | 60 | 12 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13593462 | METHOD OF GENERATING WEB PAGES USING BROWER-SIDE SCRIPT EXECUTED BY A SERVER-SIDE SCRIPT ENGINE | August 2012 | July 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13546225 | Dynamic Pivot Table Creation and Modification | July 2012 | February 2017 | Abandon | 55 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13544951 | ON-SCREEN ALERT DURING CONTENT PLAYBACK | July 2012 | September 2016 | Abandon | 50 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13541368 | FLEXIBLE WEB PAGE TEMPLATE BUILDING SYSTEM AND METHOD | July 2012 | April 2015 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13474712 | Effect Editing Methods, Systems, Application Products and Electronic Devices for Electronic Books | May 2012 | February 2015 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13369292 | DIGITAL PLAQUE THAT DISPLAYS DOCUMENTS AND UPDATES PROVIDED BY A PLAQUE MANAGEMENT SERVER | February 2012 | July 2016 | Abandon | 53 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 13363046 | Enabling Performant Cascading Operations | January 2012 | January 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12750544 | Methods and Systems for Processing Document Object Models (DOM) | March 2010 | July 2017 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12493297 | HANDHELD ELECTRONIC DEVICE WITH DISAMBIGUATION OF COMPOUND WORD TEXT INPUT EMPLOYING SEPARATING INPUT | June 2009 | April 2016 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12343479 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR REFERENCING MEASURES BETWEEN TABLES OF ANALYTICAL REPORT DOCUMENTS | December 2008 | December 2015 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner STANLEY, KAVITA.
With a 44.4% 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.
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, 26.7% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable reconsideration.
✓ 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 shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner STANLEY, KAVITA works in Art Unit 2176 and has examined 42 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 14.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 50 months.
Examiner STANLEY, KAVITA's allowance rate of 14.3% places them in the 2% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by STANLEY, KAVITA receive 3.55 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 92% 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 STANLEY, KAVITA is 50 months. This places the examiner in the 7% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +25.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by STANLEY, KAVITA. This interview benefit is in the 71% 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, 7.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 4% 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 3.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 6% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments compared to other examiners. You should generally plan to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry. Per MPEP § 714.12, primary examiners have discretion in entering after-final amendments, and this examiner exercises that discretion conservatively.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 75.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 61% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. If you have strong arguments, a PAC request may result in favorable reconsideration.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 47.1% of appeals filed. This is in the 13% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 50.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 91% 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 12% 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 14% 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.