Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17118011 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENABLING USER VOICE INTERACTION WITH A HOST COMPUTING DEVICE | December 2020 | December 2023 | Abandon | 36 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17048609 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR GENERATING HIGH DEFINITION MAP | October 2020 | October 2024 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17069958 | Interactive Contactless Ordering Terminal | October 2020 | May 2024 | Allow | 43 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17034042 | METHOD, APPARATUS AND STORAGE MEDIUM FOR DISPLAYING APPLICATION INTERFACE IN A FLOATING WINDOW | September 2020 | July 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17030474 | PROVIDING ENHANCED FUNCTIONALITY IN AN INTERACTIVE ELECTRONIC TECHNICAL MANUAL | September 2020 | November 2024 | Abandon | 49 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 16948494 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO FACILITATE REAL-TIME EDITING BY VOICE BASED ON INDIVIDUAL INPUTS FROM A USER AND TIMING INFORMATION FOR THE INDIVIDUAL INPUTS | September 2020 | February 2024 | Abandon | 41 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16982525 | ADVERTISING-SUBSIDIZED SMARTPHONES AND ADVERTISING, SMARTPHONE, AND MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS AND METHODS | September 2020 | October 2023 | Allow | 37 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17022410 | Method, device, and graphical user interface for tabbed and private browsing | September 2020 | March 2024 | Allow | 42 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17004400 | System and Method for a User Interface to Facilitate Comparisons of Data | August 2020 | May 2022 | Abandon | 21 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16927794 | METER FOR GRAPHICALLY REPRESENTING RELATIVE STATUS IN A PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP AND METHOD FOR USE THEREOF | July 2020 | August 2023 | Allow | 37 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16910537 | Cross-correlation system and method for spatial detection using a network of RF repeaters | June 2020 | November 2023 | Allow | 41 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 16846382 | INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM FOR VISUALIZING OF CHANGES IN A DOCUMENT OVER TIME | April 2020 | January 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16644678 | COMPUTER IMPLEMENTED METHOD AND COMPUTER SYSTEM FOR CUSTOMIZED EXECUTION OF A MEDIA FILE | March 2020 | May 2024 | Abandon | 50 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16519436 | SENSOR-BASED OBJECT STATUS DETERMINATION | July 2019 | December 2023 | Allow | 53 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16417391 | STACK OF MAPS | May 2019 | October 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16364010 | TECHNIQUES FOR ANALYZING THE PROFICIENCY OF USERS OF SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS | March 2019 | January 2024 | Allow | 58 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13611242 | Varying Icons to Improve Operability | September 2012 | February 2024 | Allow | 60 | 15 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BLAUFELD, JUSTIN R.
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, 0.0% 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 BLAUFELD, JUSTIN R works in Art Unit 2198 and has examined 17 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 47.1%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 45 months.
Examiner BLAUFELD, JUSTIN R's allowance rate of 47.1% places them in the 11% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by BLAUFELD, JUSTIN R receive 5.71 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 99% 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 BLAUFELD, JUSTIN R is 45 months. This places the examiner in the 14% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +38.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BLAUFELD, JUSTIN R. This interview benefit is in the 85% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 7.7% 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 13.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 15% 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, 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 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 17% 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, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 70% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.
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.