Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16266103 | Graphical User Interface that Emulates a Multi-Fold Physical File Folder | February 2019 | July 2020 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15894059 | TOUCHSCREEN KEYBOARD | February 2018 | April 2020 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15860609 | OPTICAL DESIGN SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR THE SAME | January 2018 | January 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15227098 | POPULATION OF USER IDENTIFIERS BASED ON NEARBY DEVICES | August 2016 | February 2020 | Allow | 42 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14945025 | DATA-PROVIDING APPARATUS, DATA-PROVIDING METHOD AND PROGRAM-SORTING MEDIUM | November 2015 | February 2020 | Allow | 51 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 14851115 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR EXECUTING APPLICATIONS THROUGH APPLICATION SELECTION SCREEN | September 2015 | June 2020 | Allow | 57 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14046284 | USER TERMINAL APPARATUS, METHOD FOR INPUTTING TEXT AND DISPLAYING AN INPUT MODE SIGN NEXT TO A TEXT INPUT CURSOR IN USER TERMINAL APPARATUS, AND COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM | October 2013 | October 2019 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13943587 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MOTIVATING INTERACTIONS BETWEEN USERS IN VIRTUAL WORLDS | July 2013 | April 2014 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13801307 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RETRIEVING INFORMATION WHILE COMMANDING OPERATION OF AN APPLIANCE | March 2013 | March 2018 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13418643 | DYNAMIC WEB PORTAL PAGE | March 2012 | June 2015 | Allow | 39 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13237085 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CUSTOMIZING AN INTERFACE RELATED TO ACCESSING, MANIPULATING AND VIEWING INTERNET AND NON-INTERNET RELATED INFORMATION | September 2011 | November 2014 | Allow | 38 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 12953257 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPLEMENTING PIXEL-BASED REVERSE ENGINEERING OF INTERFACE STRUCTURE | November 2010 | January 2015 | Allow | 50 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12917217 | DYNAMIC WEB PORTAL PAGE | November 2010 | August 2014 | Allow | 46 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12870982 | METHOD AND SYSTEM TO IMPROVE GUI USE EFFICIENCY | August 2010 | March 2014 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12919809 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR ENABLING SELECTION OF AN ITEM FROM A PLURALITY OF ITEMS | August 2010 | September 2014 | Allow | 48 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12470688 | SCREEN EDITING APPARATUS, SCREEN EDITING METHOD AND COMPUTER-READABLE INFORMATION RECORDING MEDIUM | May 2009 | November 2014 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12410538 | VISUALIZATION OF MEDICAL CONDITIONS IN A VIRTUAL UNIVERSE | March 2009 | August 2014 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 12129519 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MOTIVATING INTERACTIONS BETWEEN USERS IN VIRTUAL WORLDS | May 2008 | May 2013 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12060950 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISPLAYING INFORMATION ABOUT SUBNETS | April 2008 | January 2012 | Allow | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12060911 | DYNAMIC E-MAIL SIGNATURE MANAGER | April 2008 | August 2011 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12060656 | INFORMATION PRESENTING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PRESENTING METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM | April 2008 | October 2012 | Allow | 55 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11975577 | Methods for identifying cells in a path in a flowchart and for synchronizing graphical and textual views of a flowchart | October 2007 | January 2013 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11869792 | APPLICATION SHARING VIEWER PRESENTATION | October 2007 | October 2011 | Allow | 48 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 11754228 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR REMOVING RECIPIENTS FROM A MESSAGE THREAD | May 2007 | July 2011 | Allow | 49 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11724996 | NAVIGATING DISPLAYED CONTENT ON A MOBILE DEVICE | March 2007 | September 2011 | Allow | 54 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 10274975 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CUSTOMIZING AN INTERFACE RELATED TO ACCESSING, MANIPULATING AND VIEWING INTERNET AND NON-INTERNET RELATED INFORMATION | October 2002 | January 2011 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10034499 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR VISUALIZING AND NAVIGATING DYNAMIC CONTENT IN A GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE | December 2001 | April 2011 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10035800 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ENSURING INTEGRITY OF DATA-DRIVEN USER INTERFACE OF A WIRELESS MOBILE STATION | December 2001 | June 2011 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner PITARO, RYAN F.
With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.
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, 11.1% 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 PITARO, RYAN F works in Art Unit 2188 and has examined 28 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 92.9%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 51 months.
Examiner PITARO, RYAN F's allowance rate of 92.9% places them in the 79% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by PITARO, RYAN F receive 3.43 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 PITARO, RYAN F is 51 months. This places the examiner in the 6% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -12.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by PITARO, RYAN F. This interview benefit is in the 3% 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.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 26.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 47% 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 20.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 28% 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 7% 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 54.5% of appeals filed. This is in the 26% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 16.7% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 44% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 13% 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 16% 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.