Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18642045 | METHOD FOR AIRCRAFT LOCALIZATION AND CONTROL | April 2024 | February 2026 | Abandon | 22 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18536291 | A Method and System for Prioritizing Business Opportunities | December 2023 | February 2026 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18526355 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTOR ANALYSIS | December 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18547416 | RESOURCE SCHEDULING METHOD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE | August 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 29 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 17856352 | SYSTEM AND METHOD TO MANAGE COMMUNICATIONS OF CUSTOMERS ASSOCIATED TO A BUSINESS | July 2022 | December 2024 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17854724 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PERFORMING EXPERIMENTS AT REMOTE LABORATORIES | June 2022 | November 2024 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16364164 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR VISUAL SCHEDULE BUILDING | March 2019 | April 2021 | Abandon | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16238442 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING TRADING USING ALERT MESSAGES FOR OUTLYING TRADING ORDERS | January 2019 | April 2022 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16128475 | Smart Speaker Surveys | September 2018 | February 2022 | Abandon | 41 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15669227 | Identifying Alternate Content Distribution Locations | August 2017 | May 2019 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14961137 | Incentivizing Adoption of Predefined Practices Using Digital Transactable Assets | December 2015 | June 2019 | Allow | 42 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14960044 | CONSOLIDATED DEFERRED FULFILLMENT WITH REDUCED SHIPPING RESOURCE CONSUMPTION | December 2015 | July 2019 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14959045 | INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION APPARATUS, AND INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION METHOD | December 2015 | April 2019 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14799166 | AD RANKING SYSTEM AND METHOD UTILIZING BIDS AND ADJUSTMENT FACTORS BASED ON THE CAUSAL CONTRIBUTION OF ADVERTISEMENTS ON OUTCOMES | July 2015 | November 2018 | Abandon | 40 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14667270 | ADVERTISING MEDIA FOR APPLICATION TO PACKAGING MATERIALS | March 2015 | January 2019 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13566016 | NEGATIVE SIGNALS FOR ADVERTISEMENT TARGETING | August 2012 | June 2019 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13241561 | FORMAT-SPECIFIC BIDS BASED ON GOAL-ORIENTED TARGETING OF CONTENT | September 2011 | March 2019 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 12508449 | MESSAGING SERVICE FOR PROVIDING UPDATES FOR MULTIMEDIA CONTENT OF A LIVE EVENT DELIVERED OVER THE INTERNET | July 2009 | May 2019 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MUNSON, PATRICIA H.
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 MUNSON, PATRICIA H works in Art Unit 3624 and has examined 12 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 66.7%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.
Examiner MUNSON, PATRICIA H's allowance rate of 66.7% places them in the 28% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by MUNSON, PATRICIA H receive 2.33 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 66% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by MUNSON, PATRICIA H is 42 months. This places the examiner in the 19% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +45.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MUNSON, PATRICIA H. This interview benefit is in the 91% 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, 28.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 52% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 75.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 94% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.
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 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 19% 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, 33.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 21% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.
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.
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.