Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18990753 | ADAPTABLE IMPLEMENTATION OF ONLINE VIDEO ADVERTISING | December 2024 | September 2025 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18967102 | TECHNOLOGIES FOR DETERMINING AND DISPLAYING VISUALS ASSOCIATED WITH EARNING DIGITAL REWARDS | December 2024 | March 2025 | Allow | 4 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18955031 | Systems and Methods for the Display of Corresponding Content for User-Requested Vehicle Services Using Distributed Electronic Devices | November 2024 | December 2025 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18674867 | Guided Account Warming for Establishing Sending Reputations | May 2024 | March 2025 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18667549 | TECHNOLOGIES FOR DETERMINING AND DISPLAYING VISUALS ASSOCIATED WITH EARNING DIGITAL REWARDS | May 2024 | August 2024 | Allow | 3 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18651585 | Systems and Methods for Selectively Modifying Web Content | April 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 17 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18623514 | IMPROVED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MODELS ADAPTED FOR ADVERTISING | April 2024 | July 2025 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 18614459 | USING A TRAINED MODEL TO GENERATE ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS BY PREDICTING METRICS RELATED TO ITEMS ORDERED AT AN ONLINE SYSTEM | March 2024 | November 2025 | Allow | 20 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18687194 | INTERNET SEARCH AND USER INTERFACE | February 2024 | February 2026 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18413560 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETECTING FRAUDULENT ADVERTISEMENTS IN PAY-PER-CALL ADVERTISING | January 2024 | March 2025 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18526135 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CAPTURING ACCOUNT HOLDER CONSENT FOR TRANSACTION DATA COLLECTION | December 2023 | April 2025 | Allow | 16 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18518503 | TELECOMMUNICATIONS CALL AUGMENTATION SYSTEM | November 2023 | May 2025 | Abandon | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18485519 | Systems and Methods for the Display of Corresponding Content for User-Requested Vehicle Services Using Distributed Electronic Devices | October 2023 | August 2024 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18553492 | SYSTEM INTEGRATION USING AN ABSTRACTION LAYER | September 2023 | April 2025 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18282028 | INFORMATION CONTROLLING APPARATUS, INFORMATION CONTROLLING METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM | September 2023 | January 2025 | Abandon | 16 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18239007 | CONTENT CONTROL DEVICE, PROGRAM, AND CONTENT CONTROL METHOD | August 2023 | September 2025 | Abandon | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18353363 | USER CONTROL OF ANONYMIZED PROFILING DATA USING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BLOCKCHAINS IN AN ELECTRONIC AD MARKETPLACE | July 2023 | February 2025 | Abandon | 19 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18221840 | MANAGEMENT OF DISPLAY FIXTURES | July 2023 | March 2025 | Abandon | 20 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18350319 | AUTOMATED TESTING OF MULTIPLE ON-LINE COUPONS | July 2023 | August 2024 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18202844 | System and Method for Optimizing Online Marketing Based Upon Relative Advertisement Placement | May 2023 | November 2024 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18317132 | Finite State Machine Based Temporal Path to Purchase Customer Marketing System | May 2023 | June 2025 | Abandon | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18183524 | DATA PROCESSING APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD FOR DATA PROCESSING APPARATUS | March 2023 | March 2026 | Abandon | 36 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17981271 | ADVERTISEMENT SERVICE SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING PRIORITY FOR EACH ADVERTISEMENT BY REFERENCE AREA AND TAGS | November 2022 | January 2025 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18052367 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PREDICTING USER ACTIVITY BASED ON HISTORICAL ACTIVITY INFORMATION | November 2022 | February 2025 | Abandon | 27 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17936582 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LINKING ACH DATA WITH MERCHANT LOYALTY DATA | September 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 30 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17840151 | USING A WIRELESS TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO RESTRICTED COMPUTER SYSTEMS | June 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17831829 | INFORMATION PROCESSOR AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | June 2022 | December 2024 | Abandon | 31 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17830412 | Media Clearinghouse | June 2022 | November 2024 | Abandon | 30 | 2 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 17766913 | INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS | April 2022 | February 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17654152 | SECURE ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION AUTHORIZATION ON TOKENIZED IDENTIFIERS AND LOCATION DATA | March 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 46 | 10 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17449554 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF PREDICTED CONSUMER SPEND BASED ON HISTORICAL PURCHASE ACTIVITY PROGRESSIONS | September 2021 | May 2025 | Abandon | 43 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17442398 | USER DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT SYSTEM, USER DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT METHOD AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM THAT STORES USER DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM | September 2021 | April 2025 | Abandon | 42 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17258325 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INTERACTING WITH AN ENTITY | January 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 46 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16938806 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION AUTHORIZATIONS BASED ON CONSUMER DEVICE ACTIVITY | July 2020 | November 2024 | Abandon | 52 | 10 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16907803 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PERSONALIZING VISITOR EXPERIENCE AT A NON-PROFIT VENUE AND ENHANCING VISITOR PARTICIPATION IN A PHILANTHROPIC CAMPAIGN | June 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 58 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16736007 | ADAPTABLE IMPLEMENTATION OF ONLINE VIDEO ADVERTISING | January 2020 | September 2024 | Allow | 57 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16399618 | METHOD AND SYSTEM TO DETECT ADVERTISEMENT FRAUD | April 2019 | February 2022 | Abandon | 33 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 14859646 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ATTRIBUTING PURCHASE EVENTS TO PREVIOUS ONLINE ACTIVITY | September 2015 | December 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13184442 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SEARCHING, SELECTING, AND DISPLAYING CONTENT | July 2011 | November 2012 | Allow | 16 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13176057 | COMBINING SEGMENTS OF USERS INTO VERTICALLY INDEXED SUPER-SEGMENTS | July 2011 | June 2013 | Allow | 23 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12728116 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PROCESSING AND DISPLAYING CONTENT | March 2010 | June 2013 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12726149 | IMPRESSION-TREND TECHNIQUES FOR PROVIDING A DISPLAY ADVERTISING SUPPLY FORECAST | March 2010 | June 2013 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BUSCH, CHRISTOPHER CONRAD.
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 BUSCH, CHRISTOPHER CONRAD works in Art Unit 3621 and has examined 12 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 41.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 43 months.
Examiner BUSCH, CHRISTOPHER CONRAD's allowance rate of 41.7% places them in the 8% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by BUSCH, CHRISTOPHER CONRAD receive 4.50 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 BUSCH, CHRISTOPHER CONRAD is 43 months. This places the examiner in the 17% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +11.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BUSCH, CHRISTOPHER CONRAD. This interview benefit is in the 45% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 5.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 2% 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 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 2% 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 16% 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 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 1% 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, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 92% 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 33% percentile). This examiner makes examiner's amendments less often than average. You may need to make most claim amendments yourself.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 36% 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.