Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18672923 | DATABASE AND FILE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR PREDICTIVE HEALTHCARE PRESCRIPTIONS | May 2024 | August 2025 | Abandon | 14 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18485734 | Method, System, and Computer Program Product for Matching Card Transaction Data to Mobile Application Usage | October 2023 | July 2025 | Allow | 22 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18549197 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | September 2023 | December 2025 | Abandon | 27 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18217569 | DELIVERING FRESH AND/OR ENGAGING CONTENT TO WEB SITES AND THEIR ADVERTISEMENTS USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | July 2023 | March 2025 | Abandon | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18216453 | OBJECT INJECTION FRAMEWORK FOR DYNAMIC AND INTERACTIVE SCREENSAVER | June 2023 | August 2025 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18339718 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING GEOGRAPHIC ZONE INFORMATION FOR CONSUMERS | June 2023 | December 2024 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18333370 | POWER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | June 2023 | November 2024 | Allow | 17 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18208300 | Incentive-Based Advertising for a Unique Verified Individual | June 2023 | June 2025 | Abandon | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18144068 | POWER SYSTEM | May 2023 | September 2025 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18138298 | METHOD AND COMPUTING DEVICE FOR OPTIMIZING PLACEMENT OF DIGITAL SIGNAGE CONTENT BASED ON AUDIENCE SEGMENTS | April 2023 | June 2025 | Abandon | 26 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17971364 | Systems and Methods for Switching Modes of Providing Content on a Charging Station Display | October 2022 | December 2024 | Abandon | 26 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17857013 | ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD ADVERTISING PLATFORM METHOD AND DEVICES | July 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 40 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17690320 | INFORMATION DISPLAY METHOD AND INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE | March 2022 | August 2024 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17566035 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR THIN EXPLORE/EXPLOIT LAYER FOR PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM IN RECOMMENDATIONS | December 2021 | August 2025 | Allow | 43 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17383288 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCT OWNERSHIP MANAGEMENT | July 2021 | January 2025 | Abandon | 42 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 17382026 | FUNDING A GAMING ESTABLISHMENT ACCOUNT AS PART OF A FINANCIAL ACCOUNT REWARDS PROGRAM | July 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17375392 | REAL-TIME DIGITAL ASSET SAMPLING APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS | July 2021 | July 2025 | Allow | 48 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17335263 | VIRTUAL ITEM PROMOTIONS VIA TIME-PERIOD-BASED VIRTUAL ITEM BENEFITS | June 2021 | December 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17074249 | System Architecture and Methods for Facilitating Client-Side Real-Time Auctions of Advertising Inventory | October 2020 | April 2025 | Allow | 54 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16944503 | System and Method for Ensemble Expert Diversification via Bidding and Control Thereof | July 2020 | June 2024 | Allow | 47 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16261020 | Systems and Methods for Tracking Advertisement Efficacy Under Consumer Transactions | January 2019 | September 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | No | No |
| 15700125 | CALIBRATING PACING OF A CONTENT CAMPAIGN | September 2017 | April 2020 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15632292 | CONDITIONAL ADVERTISING FOR INSTANT MESSAGING | June 2017 | July 2025 | Allow | 60 | 13 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14984217 | MODIFICATION OF CONTENT ACCORDING TO USER ENGAGEMENT | December 2015 | October 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14533898 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRACKING BRAND REPUTATION AND MARKET SHARE | November 2014 | May 2019 | Allow | 54 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12774357 | BID LANDSCAPE TOOL | May 2010 | November 2018 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11779770 | TECHNIQUES FOR IMPROVING USER ENGAGEMENT WITH ADVERTISEMENTS | July 2007 | December 2017 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11315900 | Self-service terminal | December 2005 | May 2018 | Abandon | 60 | 15 | 2 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner IOSIF, MARIO CINCINAT.
With a 50.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. 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, 50.0% 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 IOSIF, MARIO CINCINAT works in Art Unit 3621 and has examined 15 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 60.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 54 months.
Examiner IOSIF, MARIO CINCINAT's allowance rate of 60.0% places them in the 20% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by IOSIF, MARIO CINCINAT receive 6.40 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 100% 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 IOSIF, MARIO CINCINAT is 54 months. This places the examiner in the 3% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +69.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by IOSIF, MARIO CINCINAT. This interview benefit is in the 98% 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, 11.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 6% 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 33.3% of appeals filed. This is in the 5% 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, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 99% 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.