USPTO Examiner SYROWIK MATHEW RICHARD - Art Unit 3621

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18416077INFORMATION EQUIPMENT AND DISPLAY METHODJanuary 2024January 2026Abandon2420NoNo
18205098system and method for an advertising creative and audience testing platformJuly 2023January 2026Abandon3220YesNo
18339871INCENTIVE AWARDS DENOMINATED AS SHARES OF EQUITYJune 2023March 2025Abandon2110NoNo
18134484SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMApril 2023May 2025Abandon2520YesNo
17988460INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, CONTENT PROVIDING METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEMORYNovember 2022October 2025Allow3430YesNo
17937699METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETERMINING PERSONALIZED MEDIA AND TARGETED GAMING APPLICATIONSOctober 2022November 2025Allow3740YesNo
17885626DIGITAL PROMOTION PROCESSING SYSTEM INCLUDING PROMOTION TERMS PREFERENCE DATA BASED PROMOTION GENERATION AND RELATED METHODSAugust 2022January 2025Allow2940YesNo
17885091SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MEASURING A REACTION OF A USER TO AN ADVERTISEMENTAugust 2022September 2025Abandon3860YesNo
17683194ASSOCIATING ADVERTISERS AND CONTENT CREATORSFebruary 2022December 2024Abandon3321YesNo
17592572SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATICALLY GENERATING A CUSTOMIZED INCENTIVE INTERFACEFebruary 2022August 2025Allow4360YesYes
17589873AUTOMATICALLY DETERMINING BY A FEDERATED SEARCH ADS TO BE PRESENTED ON A USER INTERFACEJanuary 2022October 2024Abandon3340YesNo
17550141RECOMMENDER FOR ADVERTISEMENT PLACEMENTS IN SEQUENTIAL WORKFLOWSDecember 2021January 2026Allow4980YesNo
17550211DYNAMICALLY UPDATED ADVERTISEMENT PLACEMENTS IN SEQUENTIAL WORKFLOWSDecember 2021January 2026Allow4980YesNo
17543284COUPON CATALOG EXPANSIONDecember 2021October 2024Abandon3440YesNo
17528517DETECTING ANOMALOUS TRAFFICNovember 2021February 2025Abandon3930NoNo
17524526RANKED RELEVANCE RESULTS USING MULTI-FEATURE SCORING RETURNED FROM A UNIVERSAL RELEVANCE SERVICE FRAMEWORKNovember 2021September 2025Abandon4640NoNo
17157305SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING LOCATION BASED MULTIPLIER NOTIFICATIONSJanuary 2021October 2024Allow4460YesNo
16399775METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DISTRIBUTION OF ADVERTISEMENT FRAUD DATA TO THIRD PARTIESApril 2019February 2022Abandon3370NoNo
16399637METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IP ADDRESS TRAFFIC BASED DETECTION OF FRAUDApril 2019May 2022Abandon3650NoNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner SYROWIK, MATHEW RICHARD - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner SYROWIK, MATHEW RICHARD works in Art Unit 3621 and has examined 8 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 37.5%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 44 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner SYROWIK, MATHEW RICHARD's allowance rate of 37.5% places them in the 6% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by SYROWIK, MATHEW RICHARD receive 5.62 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by SYROWIK, MATHEW RICHARD is 44 months. This places the examiner in the 15% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +75.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SYROWIK, MATHEW RICHARD. This interview benefit is in the 99% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 1% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 23.1% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 30% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.

Petition Practice

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 Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 34% 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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.
  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.