Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17006215 | PREDICTIVE SOCIAL MEDIA ALERTING SYSTEM | August 2020 | December 2024 | Allow | 51 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16903823 | PREDICTING AN OUTCOME OF A USER JOURNEY | June 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 58 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16868692 | Seasonality Prediction Model | May 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 59 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16685849 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SHOWING KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS | November 2019 | March 2025 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15870324 | PHYSICAL PRODUCT INTERACTION BASED SESSION | January 2018 | May 2025 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13900574 | LOCATION AND TIME SENSITIVE WIRELESS CALENDARING | May 2013 | February 2014 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13653435 | PROJECT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS THEREOF | October 2012 | March 2014 | Allow | 17 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 13622081 | METHOD OF ASSISTING A SALES REPRESENTATIVE IN SELLING | September 2012 | January 2014 | Allow | 16 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13490447 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DISPLAYING ADS DIRECTED TO PERSONAS HAVING ASSOCIATED CHARACTERISTICS | June 2012 | October 2017 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13315661 | CREATING SCHEDULED EVENTS IN AN ELECTRONIC CALENDAR | December 2011 | August 2013 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13235642 | DETERMINING OPTIMAL ACTION IN CONSIDERATION OF RISK | September 2011 | September 2013 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12412155 | QUORUM MANAGEMENT OF APPOINTMENT SCHEDULING | March 2009 | August 2013 | Allow | 53 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11765495 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ECONOMIC RETIREMENT ANALYSIS | June 2007 | December 2013 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11002057 | SYSTEM FOR PREDICTIVELY MANAGING COMMUNICATION ATTRIBUTES OF UNMANNED VEHICLES | December 2004 | March 2016 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner LOFTIS, JOHNNA RONEE.
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, 16.7% 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 LOFTIS, JOHNNA RONEE works in Art Unit 3625 and has examined 14 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 85.7%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 58 months.
Examiner LOFTIS, JOHNNA RONEE's allowance rate of 85.7% places them in the 64% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by LOFTIS, JOHNNA RONEE receive 4.21 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 97% 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 LOFTIS, JOHNNA RONEE is 58 months. This places the examiner in the 2% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -22.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LOFTIS, JOHNNA RONEE. This interview benefit is in the 2% 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, 7.7% 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 35.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 54% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 100.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 76% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 51% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 75.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows above-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. The mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) provides an opportunity for reconsideration.
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'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.