Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18607248 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATICALLY REQUESTING DELIVERY DRIVERS FOR ONLINE ORDERS | March 2024 | August 2025 | Allow | 17 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18423146 | ASSIGNING MOBILE DEVICE DATA TO A VEHICLE | January 2024 | April 2025 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18244861 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT | September 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18235605 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATICALLY INVOKING A DELIVERY REQUEST FOR AN IN-PROGRESS ORDER | August 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18039607 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR PROVIDING GIG SERVICE THROUGH ONE-TO-ONE CHANNEL BETWEEN GIG WORKER AND GIG SERVICE USER | May 2023 | March 2026 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18325667 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF GENERATING EXISTING CUSTOMER LEADS | May 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 24 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18140993 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING AN ORDER COLLECTION START TIME | April 2023 | November 2024 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18026808 | MEETING RECURRENCE PLACEMENT OPERATOR | March 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 34 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18114562 | Denied Boarding Impacts | February 2023 | September 2025 | Abandon | 30 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18111046 | HALFALOGUE INSIGHT GENERATION | February 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18166299 | INNOVATOR CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM | February 2023 | May 2025 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18006941 | BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY INFORMATION SALES SERVER FOR PREDICTING PURCHASER VALUE AND METHOD THEREOF | January 2023 | May 2025 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17993640 | MESSAGING SYSTEM BASED ON NETWORK-PROVIDED LOCATION DATA OF MOBILE COMPUTING DEVICES | November 2022 | August 2025 | Abandon | 33 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17980612 | VEHICLE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, VEHICLE MANAGEMENT METHOD, AND PROGRAM | November 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17894850 | PEST DISTRIBUTION MODELING WITH HYBRID MECHANISTIC AND MACHINE LEARNING MODELS | August 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17788185 | PEOPLE FLOW PREDICTION DEVICE, PEOPLE FLOW PREDICTION METHOD, AND PEOPLE FLOW PREDICTION PROGRAM | June 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17786434 | COMPUTER IMPLEMENTED METHOD FOR PROVIDING TEST DESIGN AND TEST INSTRUCTION DATA FOR COMPARATIVE TESTS FOR YIELD, GROSS MARGIN, EFFICACY AND/OR EFFECTS ON VEGETATION INDICES ON A FIELD FOR DIFFERENT RATES OR APPLICATION MODES OF ONE PRODUCT | June 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17785126 | METHOD FOR OPERATING AN AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE | June 2022 | March 2026 | Allow | 45 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17655079 | SYSTEM, METHOD, APPARATUS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR JURISDICTIONALLY COMPLIANT STAFFING MANAGEMENT WITHIN CORRECTIONS FACILITIES | March 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17681578 | APPOINTMENT SYSTEM FOR UNFULFILLED APPOINTMENT OPTIMIZATION TO BE FILLED BY WAITING LIST PATIENTS | February 2022 | December 2024 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17628214 | METHOD FOR DETERMINING AT LEAST ONE EVALUATED COMPLETE ITEM OF AT LEAST ONE PRODUCT SOLUTION | January 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17538476 | Efficiently Solving Multi-Objective Hierarchical Linear Programming Problems | November 2021 | March 2025 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17407801 | UTILIZING MACHINE LEARNING MODELS TO GENERATE AND MONITOR PROGRESS OF A STRATEGIC PLAN | August 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17432008 | DISPLAY DEVICE AND MONITORING DEVICE | August 2021 | December 2025 | Abandon | 52 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17443115 | BEHAVIORAL DATA ANALYTICS PLATFORM | July 2021 | January 2025 | Abandon | 42 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17379207 | FARM WORK SUPPORT DEVICE AND METHOD, PROGRAM, RECORDING MEDIUM, AND FARM WORK SUPPORT SYSTEM | July 2021 | November 2025 | Abandon | 52 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17370240 | AUTOMATED WORK SYSTEM | July 2021 | April 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17347499 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ASSET-CENTERED EXPENSE FORCASTING | June 2021 | December 2024 | Abandon | 42 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17217358 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR RIDESHARE IMPLICIT NEEDS AND EXPLICIT NEEDS PERSONALIZATION | March 2021 | August 2025 | Abandon | 52 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17274795 | SITE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | March 2021 | July 2024 | Allow | 40 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17154458 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MINIMIZING PASSENGER MISCONNECTS IN AIRLINE OPERATIONS | January 2021 | June 2025 | Abandon | 53 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17131429 | ROUTE-BASED DIGITAL SERVICE MANAGEMENT | December 2020 | August 2025 | Abandon | 56 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16991588 | REMAPPING FLIGHT LEG BOOKINGS | August 2020 | September 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16447286 | MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL USING SEMIDEFINITE PROGRAMMING | June 2019 | February 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16420570 | Omni-Channel Multi-Level Demand Prioritization and Allocation | May 2019 | May 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16401733 | PROCESS FOR SENSING-BASED CROP NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT USING LIMITING-RATE ESTIMATION AND YIELD RESPONSE PREDICTION | May 2019 | September 2025 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16218264 | RAPID ACCESS TO DATA ORIENTED WORKFLOWS | December 2018 | January 2020 | Allow | 13 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15953410 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR MULTI-SOURCED REPORTING OF CROWD INFORMATION | April 2018 | December 2022 | Abandon | 56 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 15618527 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR FORECASTING USING AN ONLINE ANALYTICAL PROCESSING DATABASE | June 2017 | December 2019 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 15582244 | METHOD AND SYSTEM OF MANAGING ITEM ASSORTMENT BASED ON DEMAND TRANSFER | April 2017 | July 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15471054 | PATRON PRESENCE BASED WORKFORCE CAPACITY NOTIFICATION | March 2017 | October 2025 | Allow | 60 | 11 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15191665 | AUTOMATIC UPDATING OF OPERATIONAL TABLES | June 2016 | July 2019 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14845608 | METHODS AND APPARATUS TO MEASURE MARKET STATISTICS | September 2015 | July 2019 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14748264 | GENERATING APPARATUS, GENERATION METHOD, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD AND PROGRAM | June 2015 | August 2017 | Allow | 26 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14744793 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR REMOTE MANAGEMENT OF APPOINTMENT DATA | June 2015 | March 2019 | Allow | 45 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13483130 | CROSS FUNCTIONAL AREA SERVICE IDENTIFICATION | May 2012 | December 2012 | Allow | 7 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12477276 | CROSS FUNCTIONAL AREA SERVICE IDENTIFICATION METHOD AND SYSTEM | June 2009 | April 2012 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12079677 | AUTOMATIC INSERTION POINT IDENTIFICATION IN MODEL MERGING OPERATIONS | March 2008 | July 2012 | Allow | 52 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11172260 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SCHEDULING | June 2005 | February 2013 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 11069261 | METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR ASSOCIATING AND DISPLAYING PROJECT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION | March 2005 | March 2013 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner FEACHER, LORENA R.
With a 40.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is above the USPTO average, indicating that appeals have better success here than typical.
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 FEACHER, LORENA R works in Art Unit 3625 and has examined 29 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 55.2%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 52 months.
Examiner FEACHER, LORENA R's allowance rate of 55.2% places them in the 16% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by FEACHER, LORENA R receive 3.59 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 95% 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 FEACHER, LORENA R is 52 months. This places the examiner in the 4% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -22.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by FEACHER, LORENA R. This interview benefit is in the 1% 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, 8.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 4% 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 20.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 24% 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 17% 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 44.4% of appeals filed. This is in the 10% 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, 88.9% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 88% 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.
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.