USPTO Examiner TAPP AMELIA L - Art Unit 2179

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18632825METHOD FOR EDITING TEXT INFORMATIONApril 2024October 2024Allow610NoNo
18537465SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TEXT-TO-TEXT TRANSFORMATION OF QUALITATIVE RESPONSESDecember 2023May 2024Allow510NoNo
18373450TEXT FORMATTERSeptember 2023September 2024Allow1210YesNo
18453772FRAMEWORK AGNOSTIC SUMMARIZATION OF MULTI-CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONAugust 2023April 2024Allow700NoNo
18351328AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE WITH USER INTERFACING FOR DISPLAYING AND SELECTING IoT DEVICE(S) AND FOR DISPLAYING AND SELECTING CAPABILITIES OF EACH SELECTED IoT DEVICEJuly 2023December 2024Allow1710YesNo
18209439TRANSACTION ENTITY PREDICTION WITH A GLOBAL LISTJune 2023January 2024Allow710YesNo
18328330OBJECT LEVEL SELECTIVE UNDO IN DIGITAL GRAPHIC DESIGN DOCUMENTSJune 2023January 2025Allow1920YesNo
18326592CALL DISPLAY METHOD AND APPARATUS, DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUMMay 2023August 2024Allow1520YesNo
18326250MESSAGE CONTENT REDUCTION USING MESSAGE TEMPLATESMay 2023April 2024Allow1010YesNo
18037889GENERATING HEADING BASED ON EXTRACTED FEATURE WORDSMay 2023October 2024Allow1710NoNo
18032283APPARATUS FOR GENERATING DRAFT DOCUMENT AND METHOD THEREFORApril 2023July 2024Allow1510NoNo
18301101WORKFLOW STYLE GOVERNANCEApril 2023June 2024Allow1410NoNo
18131996TECHNOLOGY FOR MANAGING GRAPHIC DESIGN USING METADATA RELATIONSHIPSApril 2023December 2024Allow2020NoNo
18124304WEIGHTED SCROLL FOR DISPLAY OF HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURESMarch 2023May 2024Allow1400NoNo
18184852TRANSFORMING CONTENT TO SUPPORT NEURODIVERGENT COMPREHENSION OF THE CONTENTMarch 2023January 2025Allow2230YesNo
18043296Screen Projection Method and Apparatus, and Project EndFebruary 2023September 2024Allow1900NoNo
18174314CHARACTER INPUT DEVICE, CHARACTER INPUT METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING A CHARACTER INPUT PROGRAMFebruary 2023July 2024Allow1610NoNo
18103543SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FACILITATING NAVIGATION IN SPACEJanuary 2023November 2024Allow2120YesNo
18103551SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF PREVENTING USER INTERFACE (UI) FLICKERINGJanuary 2023September 2024Allow2030YesNo
18007193WEB PAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHOD USING BLOCK INFORMATION WITHIN WEB PAGEJanuary 2023September 2024Allow2020YesNo
18054511SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MULTI-MODAL CONVERSATION SUMMARIZATION ON A CONVERSATION PLATFORMNovember 2022November 2024Allow2520YesNo
17945718Avatar Carrier Generating System for Metaverse and Method ThereofSeptember 2022February 2025Allow2910NoNo
17874256METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CREATING A CURATED LIST OF IMPORTANT OR ACTIONABLE ITEMS FROM RECEIVED, DIGITIZED HANDWRITTEN SYMBOLS AND TEXTJuly 2022March 2024Allow2010NoNo
17757827KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR PERFORMANCE REPORT APPARATUS AND METHODJune 2022December 2024Abandon3010NoNo
17749837SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR QUERY-FOCUSED SUMMARIZATIONMay 2022March 2024Allow2201NoNo
17746484TARGET-BASED SCHEMA IDENTIFICATION AND SEMANTIC MAPPING FOR ROBOTIC PROCESS AUTOMATIONMay 2022September 2024Allow2800NoNo
17531479METHOD OF COMPUTERIZED PRESENTATION OF A LEGEND OF OBJECT SYMBOLS ON A DOCUMENTNovember 2021November 2024Allow3630YesNo
17504361AUTONOMOUS DETECTION OF COMPOUND ISSUE REQUESTS IN AN ISSUE TRACKING SYSTEMOctober 2021December 2023Allow2610YesNo
17370533ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR CONVERTING HANDWRITING TO TEXT AND METHOD THEREFORJuly 2021March 2024Allow3220YesNo
17352614Adaptive Column SelectionJune 2021July 2024Abandon3720YesNo
17146133AUTOMATIC DOCUMENT SKETCHINGJanuary 2021December 2024Allow4740YesNo
17128468ENHANCEMENT AWARE TEXT TRANSITIONDecember 2020December 2024Abandon4840YesNo
16695115Emoji to Select How or Where Sound Will Localize to a ListenerNovember 2019June 2024Abandon5440YesNo
15581921ALLOWING OPERATING SYSTEM ACCESS TO NON-STANDARD FONTS IN A NETWORK DOCUMENTApril 2017November 2017Allow700YesNo
15582399ALLOWING OPERATING SYSTEM ACCESS TO NON-STANDARD FONTS IN A NETWORK DOCUMENTApril 2017August 2018Allow1510YesNo
15421270PROVISION OF ALTERNATIVE TEXT FOR USE IN ASSOCIATION WITH IMAGE DATAJanuary 2017June 2019Allow2900NoNo
15341698DETERMINING AND ASSISTING WITH DOCUMENT OR DESIGN CODE COMPLETENESSNovember 2016April 2019Allow2910NoNo
15337983SUMMARIZATION AND PROCESSING OF EMAIL ON A CLIENT COMPUTING DEVICE BASED ON CONTENT CONTRIBUTION TO AN EMAIL THREAD USING WEIGHTING TECHNIQUESOctober 2016May 2018Allow1900NoNo
15197389APPARATUS OF A HAND-HELD DEVICE FOR EXPOSING NON-STANDARD FONTS IN A NETWORK DOCUMENT TO AN OPERATING SYSTEMJune 2016September 2017Allow1520YesNo
15159939INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUMMay 2016March 2018Allow2200NoNo
14980363Accessing Related Application States From A Current Application StateDecember 2015February 2018Allow2510YesNo
14634444AUTOMATED PAGE GENERATION USING VALUE-BASED RECOMMENDATIONSFebruary 2015August 2017Allow3020YesNo
14537435APPROACHES FOR CONTROLLING A COMPUTING DEVICE BASED ON HEAD MOVEMENTNovember 2014February 2017Allow2710YesNo
14535544DETECTING INFLUENCE CAUSED BY CHANGING THE SOURCE CODE OF AN APPLICATION FROM WHICH A DOCUMENT OBJECT MODEL TREE AND CASCADING STYLE SHEET MAY BE EXTRACTEDNovember 2014July 2016Allow2100NoNo
14399337APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR DOCUMENT FORMAT CONVERSIONNovember 2014September 2016Allow2230YesNo
14497179GENERATING CUSTOM MARKUP CONTENT TO DETER ROBOTSSeptember 2014September 2018Allow4840YesNo
13936163PROVISION OF ALTERNATIVE TEXT FOR USE IN ASSOCIATION WITH IMAGE DATAJuly 2013October 2016Allow3930YesNo
13935514INTERACTIVE SITEMAP WITH USER FOOTPRINTSJuly 2013March 2017Allow4440YesNo
13934891ENHANCED KEYWORD FIND OPERATION IN A WEB PAGEJuly 2013April 2016Allow3320YesNo
13789161AUTONOMIC GENERATION OF DOCUMENT STRUCTURE IN A CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMMarch 2013June 2015Allow2700NoNo
13297500System and Method for Using Pre-Defined Character Ranges to Denote Document FeaturesNovember 2011September 2015Allow4610NoNo
12870817Detecting plagiarism in computer markup language filesAugust 2010February 2015Allow5320YesNo
12870456TECHNIQUES FOR CONTENT SERVICESAugust 2010May 2015Allow5730NoNo
12869449INFORMATION DISPLAY APPARATUS AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUMAugust 2010September 2015Allow6040YesNo
12854052DOMAIN BASED WORKFLOWSAugust 2010September 2015Allow6050YesNo
12730209PROVIDING TAGGING ASSISTANCE AND COMPLIANCE REVIEW IN CONNECTION WITH STANDARDIZED DOCUMENTSMarch 2010December 2024Abandon6010NoNo
12199546DOCUMENT CONVERSION APPARATUS AND DOCUMENT CONVERSION METHODAugust 2008April 2015Allow6030NoNo
11942583METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR PUBLICATION OF UNCONSCIOUSLY CAPTURED DOCUMENTSNovember 2007April 2015Allow6060YesNo
11864836VISUALIZING CHANGES TO CONTENT OVER TIMESeptember 2007May 2015Allow6040YesNo
11844787SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ANNOTATION OF DATA VISUALIZATIONSAugust 2007January 2015Allow6040YesNo
11838610Differential Dynamic Content Delivery With Text Display In Dependence Upon Sound LevelAugust 2007October 2014Allow6030YesNo
11562973Method, System and Apparatus for Using User Profile Electronic Device Data In Media DeliveryNovember 2006October 2014Allow6020YesNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner TAPP, AMELIA L - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner TAPP, AMELIA L works in Art Unit 2179 and has examined 36 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 88.9%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 39 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner TAPP, AMELIA L's allowance rate of 88.9% places them in the 70% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by TAPP, AMELIA L receive 2.28 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 64% 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 TAPP, AMELIA L is 39 months. This places the examiner in the 26% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a -1.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by TAPP, AMELIA L. This interview benefit is in the 9% percentile among all examiners. Note: Interviews show limited statistical benefit with this examiner compared to others, though they may still be valuable for clarifying issues.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 28.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 53% 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 38.1% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 58% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 90.9% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 88% 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 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 6.2% of allowed cases (in the 83% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

    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.