Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18656275 | MACHINE LEARNING BASED USER TARGETING | May 2024 | June 2025 | Abandon | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18634438 | SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING AND TARGETING USERS FOR INCENTIVES IN A SOCIAL NETWORK | April 2024 | June 2025 | Abandon | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18387830 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO FACILITATE PROVIDING A SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT KIT (SDK) FOR REWARDS FOR MAKING GIFT CARD PURCHASES TO MULTIPLE APPLICATION PUBLISHERS | November 2023 | February 2025 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18130904 | Targeted Advertising and Inventory Optimization Improvements Utilizing User Location and Selection Data | April 2023 | March 2025 | Abandon | 23 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18009356 | ENTERPRISE ACTIVATION DEGREE DETERMINING METHOD AND APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM | December 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18078542 | Automatic After Call Social Messaging Connection Platform | December 2022 | February 2025 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17968564 | SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING PRODUCT SUBSTITUTES FIELD | October 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17891131 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING SUBSCRIPTION NOTIFICATION SERVICE | August 2022 | December 2024 | Abandon | 28 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17891099 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING DIGITAL HEALTH SERVICES | August 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17884509 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING REAL-TIME TECHNICAL TROUBLESHOOTING SUPPORT | August 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17740933 | DATA AGGREGATION BASED ON MULTISYSTEM INTEGRATION FOR OBJECT COLLABORATION | May 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17740247 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING ON-DEMAND LEGAL COUNSEL AND DECENTRALIZED TRUSTED NETWORKS | May 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17760502 | IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM | March 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 38 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17639224 | PLATFORM, SYSTEM, METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | February 2022 | January 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17622905 | PAYMENT SYSTEM AND PAYMENT METHOD, WHICH USE DISCOUNT COUPON CAPABLE OF CHANGING DISCOUNT RATE | December 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 38 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17615983 | EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SYSTEM | December 2021 | May 2025 | Abandon | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17532624 | Systems and Methods for Autogeneration of Information Technology Infrastructure Process Automation and Abstraction of the Universal Application of Reinforcement Learning to Information Technology Infrastructure Components and Interfaces | November 2021 | May 2025 | Abandon | 42 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17524792 | MESSAGING DISPLAY SYSTEM AND METHOD | November 2021 | November 2023 | Abandon | 24 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17383306 | DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCT RECALL MANAGEMENT | July 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17365993 | METHODS FOR REMOTE BUILDING INTELLIGENCE, ENERGY WASTE DETECTION, EFFICIENCY TRACKING, UTILITY MANAGEMENT AND ANALYTICS | July 2021 | February 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17088340 | REDUCING COMPUTATIONAL OVERHEAD INVOLVED WITH PROCESSING RECEIVED SERVICE REQUESTS | November 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 53 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16792508 | Beacon-Based Identification System and Method | February 2020 | November 2023 | Abandon | 45 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16582208 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ASSISTING CUSTOMER SUPPORT AGENTS USING A CONTEXTUAL BANDIT BASED DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM | September 2019 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16366578 | MULTI-ENTITY ENTERPRISE LOYALTY SYSTEM | March 2019 | December 2024 | Allow | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15621846 | COORDINATED MULTI-VIEW DISPLAY EXPERIENCES | June 2017 | July 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15461113 | SKETCH-BASED BID FRAUD DETECTION | March 2017 | January 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15342055 | MARKETING DISPLAY SYSTEMS AND METHODS | November 2016 | July 2019 | Abandon | 32 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14991617 | NETWORKED COMPUTER SYSTEM AND COMPUTER IMPLEMENTED METHODS FOR PROVIDING AN ONLINE AUCTION WEBPAGE WITH SKILL-BASED GAME | January 2016 | June 2019 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SITTNER, MICHAEL J.
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 SITTNER, MICHAEL J works in Art Unit 3621 and has examined 26 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 15.4%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 38 months.
Examiner SITTNER, MICHAEL J's allowance rate of 15.4% places them in the 1% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by SITTNER, MICHAEL J receive 3.38 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 SITTNER, MICHAEL J is 38 months. This places the examiner in the 12% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +10.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SITTNER, MICHAEL J. This interview benefit is in the 48% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 2.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 0% 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 16.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 12% 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 15% 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 3% 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, 150.0% 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 31% 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 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.