Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18699749 | WASTE ATTRIBUTION SYSTEM | April 2024 | February 2026 | Abandon | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18496700 | EFFICIENT OPTIMAL FACILITY LOCATION DETERMINATION METHOD FOR CONVEX POSITION DEMAND POINT | October 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18378177 | System and Related Methods for Real-Time Context-Aware Targeted Advertising System Using Neural Networks and Object Recognition in Public Spaces | October 2023 | September 2025 | Abandon | 24 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17547244 | ADVERTISING METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING ADVERTISING STRATEGY | December 2021 | February 2026 | Abandon | 50 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16940722 | PRODUCT LISTING MOCKUP GENERATOR | July 2020 | July 2022 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16772095 | BANNER ADVERTISEMENT SERVICE SYSTEM IN WHICH BANNER-SPECIFIC PRIORITY IS DETERMINED BY REFERENCE AREA | June 2020 | October 2022 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16767163 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR MANAGING A SOCIAL COMMERCE REWARDS PLATFORM | May 2020 | September 2021 | Abandon | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16589318 | Advertising System | October 2019 | August 2021 | Abandon | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16515940 | DYNAMIC MARKETING CAMPAIGN TARGETING | July 2019 | November 2021 | Abandon | 28 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16476638 | ADVERTISEMENT SPACE OPTIMIZATION SYSTEM AND ADVERTISEMENT SPACE OPTIMIZATION METHOD FOR BROADCAST MEDIA SUCH AS TELEVISION | July 2019 | January 2022 | Abandon | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16406231 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CALCULATING PROMOTION ADJUSTED LOYALTY | May 2019 | December 2021 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16159421 | EXCHANGING CONSUMPTION OF ADVERTISEMENTS FOR ACCESS TO DIGITAL MEDIA DECOUPLED IN TIME, VALUE, AND LOCATION | October 2018 | January 2022 | Abandon | 39 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15965942 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR TRACKING AND REWARDING DISTRIBUTORS OF GIFT CARDS | April 2018 | June 2022 | Abandon | 49 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15945128 | FACILITATING USER ENGAGEMENT IN OFFLINE TRANSACTIONS | April 2018 | November 2022 | Abandon | 55 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15744580 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FACILITATING CUSTOMER REFERRAL AND ENDORSEMENT OF ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS | January 2018 | October 2022 | Abandon | 57 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15867593 | DYNAMIC LOCATION TYPE DETERMINATION BASED ON INTERACTION WITH SECONDARY DEVICES | January 2018 | June 2022 | Abandon | 54 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 15863455 | CONNECTED DEVICES TRACKING AND CONTENT DELIVERY SYSTEM | January 2018 | October 2022 | Abandon | 58 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15848303 | VALIDATING DIGITAL CONTENT PRESENTED ON A MOBILE DEVICE | December 2017 | August 2021 | Abandon | 44 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15843889 | METHODS AND DEVICES FOR DETERMINING DISTRACTION LEVEL OF USERS TO SELECT TARGETED ADVERTISEMENTS | December 2017 | December 2021 | Abandon | 48 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15840716 | APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING ADVERTISING EVENT CREATION TOOL AND METHOD FOR THE SAME | December 2017 | December 2021 | Abandon | 48 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 15823586 | Advertising System and Advertising Method | November 2017 | January 2022 | Abandon | 50 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 15165613 | Automated Multivariate Testing Technique for Optimized Customer Outcome | May 2016 | November 2019 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14645545 | CUSTOMIZABLE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | March 2015 | December 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 14423068 | SHOPPING E-MONEY MANAGEMENT SERVICE METHOD IN ELECTRONIC COMMERCE USING INTERNET AND COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM HAVING PROGRAM RECORDED THEREON FOR EXECUTING SAME | February 2015 | March 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14015218 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ANNOUNCEMENTS VIA A MOBILE DEVICE | August 2013 | August 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 11 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SPAR, ILANA L.
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 SPAR, ILANA L works in Art Unit 3622 and has examined 22 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 0.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 48 months.
Examiner SPAR, ILANA L's allowance rate of 0.0% places them in the 0% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by SPAR, ILANA L receive 3.50 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 94% 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 SPAR, ILANA L is 48 months. This places the examiner in the 8% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SPAR, ILANA L. This interview benefit is in the 16% 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, 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.
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, 133.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 97% 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 34% percentile). This examiner makes examiner's amendments less often than average. You may need to make most claim amendments yourself.
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.