USPTO Examiner SINGLETARY TYRONE E - Art Unit 3625

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18928719SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING PATH SOLUTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH A SUPPLY CHAIN NETWORKOctober 2024February 2026Allow1500NoNo
18829005IDENTIFYING A TECHNOLOGY USED BY A USERSeptember 2024February 2026Allow1730YesNo
18734079UPDATING SUSTAINABILITY ACTION PLANS FOR AN ENTERPRISE BASED ON DETECTED CHANGE IN INPUT DATAJune 2024February 2026Allow2030YesNo
18733973IDENTIFYING ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN SUSTAINABILITY ACTION PLANSJune 2024December 2025Allow1930YesNo
18613178DRILLING ACTIVITY RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM AND METHODMarch 2024January 2026Allow2220YesNo
18363803SUSTAINABILITY OPTIMIZER PLUGINAugust 2023February 2026Abandon3010YesNo
18351334SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ORCHESTRATING THE DETERMINATION OF A PRODUCT CARBON FOOTPRINTJuly 2023January 2026Abandon3041YesNo
18204084SYSTEMS AND METHOD FOR MESSAGE-BASED CONTROL AND MONITORING OF A BUSINESS PROCESSMay 2023January 2024Allow710YesNo
17921800Reminding Method and Related ApparatusOctober 2022February 2026Abandon3920NoNo
17867310ZAAF - Augmented Analytics Framework with Deep Metrics DiscoveryJuly 2022November 2025Abandon4030NoYes
17702356METHODS OF ASSESSING LONG-TERM INDICATORS OF SENTIMENTMarch 2022January 2026Abandon4640YesNo
17668976SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MEASURING IMPACT OF ONLINE SEARCH QUERIES ON USER ACTIONSFebruary 2022January 2026Abandon4750NoNo
17584895PREDICTING FUTURE DEMAND USING TIME-SERIES FORECASTSJanuary 2022January 2026Abandon4760YesNo
17153918METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR WORKFLOW AUTOMATIONJanuary 2021February 2026Abandon6050YesYes
16594194Rating Aggregation and Propagation Mechanism for Hierarchical Services and ProductsOctober 2019August 2020Allow1010YesNo
14744458RATING AGGREGATION AND PROPAGATION MECHANISM FOR HIERARCHICAL SERVICES AND PRODUCTSJune 2015June 2019Allow4830YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SINGLETARY, TYRONE E.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
1
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
15.6%
Lower than average

What This Means

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.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
1
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
8.5%
Lower than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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.

Strategic Recommendations

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 SINGLETARY, TYRONE E - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner SINGLETARY, TYRONE E works in Art Unit 3625 and has examined 3 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 48 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner SINGLETARY, TYRONE E'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.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by SINGLETARY, TYRONE E receive 3.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 87% 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by SINGLETARY, TYRONE E 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 16.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 14% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

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.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

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 37% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may come directly without a separate action for formal matters.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.