Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19257191 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS IN ERP AND HRIS | July 2025 | January 2026 | Allow | 6 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18813078 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR OPTIMIZING PRODUCTION SCHEDULING BASED ON CAPACITY OF BOTTLENECK APPARATUS, AND MEDIUM | August 2024 | January 2026 | Allow | 17 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18316020 | COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ASSESSING COMPATIBILITY OF HUMAN RESOURCES WITHIN AN ORGANIZATION | May 2023 | March 2026 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18048467 | ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL FOR REDUCTION OF ENTERPRISE CARBON FOOTPRINT PROFILE | October 2022 | January 2026 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17947981 | METHODS, SYSTEMS, APPARATUS AND ARTICLES OF MANUFACTURE TO MODEL eCOMMERCE SALES | September 2022 | March 2026 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17643488 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CLOUD-FIRST STREAMING AND MARKET DATA UTILITY | December 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 46 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 17121528 | APPARATUSES, COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHODS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR IMPROVED MONITORED BUILDING ENVIRONMENT MONITORING AND SCORING | December 2020 | January 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16753823 | DYNAMIC BALANCING OF WELL CONSTRUCTION AND WELL OPERATIONS PLANNING AND RIG EQUIPMENT TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP | April 2020 | December 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16418671 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ITEM TRACKING AND DELIVERY | May 2019 | September 2025 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | No | No |
| 15949234 | SEATING SPACE OPTIMIZATION IN A GROUPED SEATING ENVIRONMENT | April 2018 | March 2021 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15899306 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRANSACTING LEAD AND SCHEDULED APPOINTMENT RECORDS | February 2018 | January 2020 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15730601 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS | October 2017 | August 2021 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 15496118 | WORK INSTRUCTION SYSTEM | April 2017 | May 2021 | Allow | 49 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14609457 | EXTRACTION OF SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR ACTIONS TO A WORKFLOW PROVIDING A RESOLUTION TO A SYSTEM ISSUE | January 2015 | February 2019 | Allow | 49 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14035615 | PROVIDING RECOMMENDED MEETING PARAMETERS BASED ON RELIGIOUS OR CULTURAL ATTRIBUTES OF MEETING INVITEES OBTAINED FROM SOCIAL MEDIA DATA | September 2013 | April 2017 | Allow | 43 | 5 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 13956029 | REAL-TIME PREDICTION AND CORRECTION OF SCHEDULED SERVICE BUNCHING | July 2013 | May 2017 | Allow | 46 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13683231 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR FACILITY LOCATION OPTIMIZATION | November 2012 | March 2014 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13189633 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR OPTIMIZING CONTACT CENTER PERFORMANCE | July 2011 | September 2016 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12937490 | ASSISTING FAILURE DIAGNOSIS IN A SYSTEM | December 2010 | November 2017 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12630866 | DETECTING ANOMALIES IN FIELD FAILURE DATA | December 2009 | May 2017 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12058051 | Apparatus and Methods for Decomposing Service Processes and for Identifying Alternate Service Elements in Service Provider Environments | March 2008 | November 2016 | Allow | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11196692 | MILESTONE INITIAL SCHEDULING | August 2005 | May 2012 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11195964 | Spreading algorithm for work and time forecasting | August 2005 | July 2013 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SWARTZ, STEPHEN S.
With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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, 66.7% 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 SWARTZ, STEPHEN S works in Art Unit 3625 and has examined 18 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 94.4%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 10000 months.
Examiner SWARTZ, STEPHEN S's allowance rate of 94.4% places them in the 83% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by SWARTZ, STEPHEN S receive 4.89 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 99% 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 SWARTZ, STEPHEN S is 10000 months. This places the examiner in the 1% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -10.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SWARTZ, STEPHEN S. This interview benefit is in the 3% 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, 15.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 11% 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 18.2% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 21% 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 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 51% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 16.7% 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, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 5% 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 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.