Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17096642 | METHOD FOR CONSOLIDATING A KEY INDICATOR OF A VIRTUAL OBJECT IN AN INDEX | November 2020 | August 2024 | Allow | 45 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17096709 | METHOD FOR CONSOLIDATING A KEY INDICATOR OF A VIRTUAL OBJECT IN A SOFTWARE COMPONENT | November 2020 | August 2024 | Allow | 45 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16937410 | System and Method for Managing Leads at an Event | July 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 56 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16599770 | METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND APPARATUSES FOR PROVIDING DATA INSIGHT AND ANALYTICS | October 2019 | October 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16582740 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATED ROLE REDESIGN | September 2019 | May 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14661441 | Calendar Adjusting Device | March 2015 | June 2018 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14537945 | Enhancing Data Cubes | November 2014 | August 2017 | Allow | 33 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner HENRY, MATTHEW D works in Art Unit 3625 and has examined 7 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 57.1%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 45 months.
Examiner HENRY, MATTHEW D's allowance rate of 57.1% places them in the 19% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by HENRY, MATTHEW D receive 3.14 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 86% 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 HENRY, MATTHEW D is 45 months. This places the examiner in the 14% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +66.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HENRY, MATTHEW D. This interview benefit is in the 98% 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, 11.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 7% 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 3% 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 file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 92% 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 32% 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 37% 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.