Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19298245 | MOTOR CONTROLLER, DRIVE SYSTEM, POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, AND ELECTRIC DEVICE | August 2025 | January 2026 | Allow | 5 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 19274977 | SUPPORT STRUCTURE FOR LINEAR MOTOR | July 2025 | September 2025 | Allow | 2 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18589486 | VISUAL SEARCH BASED REAL TIME E-COMMERCE SYSTEM AND METHOD WITH COMPUTER VISION | February 2024 | February 2026 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18437090 | AUTOMATED CHECK REORDERING SYSTEM AND METHOD | February 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18479897 | System And Method For Combining Distinct Orders for Single Pickup | October 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18467712 | FIELD WINDING TYPE ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE | September 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18466309 | AUGMENTED REALITY SHOPPING SYSTEM | September 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18365459 | ELECTRIC MOTOR DEVICE | August 2023 | November 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18274039 | FLYWHEEL BATTERY | July 2023 | February 2026 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18336701 | NON-AXISYMMETRIC MOTOR WITH INTEGRATED MAGNETIC GEARING | June 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18209597 | MOTOR AND CLEANER HAVING THE SAME | June 2023 | September 2025 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17984163 | EXTERNAL ROTOR MOTOR AND HUB THEREOF | November 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 38 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17782518 | FLUX BARRIER ELECTRIC MACHINE WITH SUPERCONDUCTING INDUCED ELEMENT AND INDUCTOR | June 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 36 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17518604 | EVALUATION APPARATUS, EVALUATION METHOD, AND COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | November 2021 | August 2025 | Allow | 46 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14729108 | CATALOG-BASED SOFTWARE LICENSE RECONCILIATION | June 2015 | January 2017 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14547853 | MOBILE POINT-OF-SALE | November 2014 | December 2015 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14451833 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING ORDERS | August 2014 | November 2016 | Allow | 28 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14103417 | AUTOMATED INVENTORY MANAGEMENT | December 2013 | November 2015 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13651197 | INTEGRATED KITS FOR CONDUCTING ITEM SAMPLING EVENTS | October 2012 | January 2014 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13589745 | BILLING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS, BILLING MANAGEMENT APPARATUS, BILLING INFORMATION RECORDING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | August 2012 | May 2015 | Allow | 33 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13019401 | SYSTEM, METHOD, AND APPARATUS TO FACILITATE COMMERCE AND SALES | February 2011 | December 2013 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 12961243 | SECURE SYSTEM AND PROCESS FOR IDENTIFICATION AND IDENTITY REGISTRATION | December 2010 | February 2014 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12958983 | METHOD FOR PREPARING AN OPTIMAL ALTERNATIVE BILLING PLAN FOR MOBILE TELEPHONY USERS MANAGED THROUGH A CALL CENTER | December 2010 | December 2013 | Allow | 36 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12845227 | CATALOG-BASED SOFTWARE LICENSE RECONCILIATION | July 2010 | April 2015 | Allow | 57 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 12812271 | INTERACTIVE INFORMATION PROCESSING AND DELIVERY SYSTEM AND METHODS THEREOF | July 2010 | July 2013 | Abandon | 36 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12832865 | MANAGEMENT OF ACTIONS BASED ON PRIORITY LEVELS AND CALENDAR ENTRIES | July 2010 | March 2013 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12795163 | BILLING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS, BILLING MANAGEMENT APPARATUS, BILLING INFORMATION RECORDING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | June 2010 | May 2012 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12607189 | LIQUID DISPENSATION | October 2009 | October 2013 | Allow | 48 | 2 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 12363145 | SUPPLIER STRATIFICATION | January 2009 | January 2012 | Allow | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12337455 | METHODS, APPARATUSES, SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR USE IN DETERMINING PREMIUMS | December 2008 | September 2013 | Allow | 57 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 12335953 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PREPAID BIOMETRIC REDEMPTION ACCOUNTS | December 2008 | March 2011 | Abandon | 27 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12170169 | SYSTEM AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR FACILITATING CUSTOMS PLANNING AND CLEARANCE | July 2008 | August 2009 | Allow | 13 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 11959516 | DOCUMENT PROCESSING SYSTEM AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | December 2007 | January 2012 | Allow | 49 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 11876331 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING A SURVEY FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASSET | October 2007 | May 2012 | Allow | 55 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11528104 | AUTOMATED INVENTORY SYSTEM AND METHOD | September 2006 | August 2009 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11515815 | PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEM AND PROCESS CONTROL METHOD | September 2006 | June 2010 | Allow | 45 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 10587943 | PROFIT-AND-LOSS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION PRESENTATION METHOD, PROFIT-AND-LOSS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION PRESENTATION DEVICE, AND PROFIT-AND LOSS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION PRESENTATION PROCESS PROGRAM | August 2006 | January 2011 | Allow | 53 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11481797 | PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT PACKAGING | July 2006 | April 2011 | Allow | 57 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11443775 | DYNAMICALLY MANAGING TIMESHEET DATA ASSOCIATED WITH MULTIPLE BILLING TYPES | May 2006 | June 2011 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11341545 | Feedback control theoretic parts inventory management model | January 2006 | March 2013 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 11264176 | PROVIDING A PACKAGE IDENTIFIER | November 2005 | October 2011 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11173677 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF GENERATING SERVICE PLANS FOR REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS | July 2005 | December 2009 | Allow | 54 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11165391 | INVENTORY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD | June 2005 | November 2009 | Allow | 52 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11006366 | MUNICIPAL PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX COMPLIANCE METHOD, SYSTEM, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT | December 2004 | November 2009 | Allow | 59 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10969702 | DEVICE FOR DISPLAYING A CURRENT STATUS DURING ORDER PROCESSING IN A PRODUCTION PLANT | October 2004 | December 2009 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10823145 | EXTRACTION, TRANSFORMATION AND LOADING DESIGNER MODULE OF A COMPUTERIZED FINANCIAL SYSTEM | April 2004 | June 2010 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10646141 | METHOD AND SYSTEM OF MATCHING CUSTOMER DEMAND WITH PRODUCTION CAPACITY | August 2003 | June 2010 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 09915438 | METHOD, SYSTEM, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR FACILITATING INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMS PLANNING | July 2001 | May 2008 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner IWARERE, OLUSEYE.
With a 75.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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, 62.5% 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.
✓ 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 IWARERE, OLUSEYE works in Art Unit 2834 and has examined 35 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 94.3%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 46 months.
Examiner IWARERE, OLUSEYE's allowance rate of 94.3% places them in the 83% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by IWARERE, OLUSEYE receive 2.23 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 62% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by IWARERE, OLUSEYE is 46 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.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -16.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by IWARERE, OLUSEYE. This interview benefit is in the 2% 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, 44.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 95% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 45.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 69% 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.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 50.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 44% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show below-average success with this examiner. Consider whether your arguments are strong enough to warrant a PAC request.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 63.6% of appeals filed. This is in the 43% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 28.6% 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, 40.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 30% 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 28.6% 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 31% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may 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.