Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16062814 | MAGNETIC-RESONANCE IMAGING DATA SYNCHRONIZER | January 2021 | March 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17125310 | GLOBAL TELEMEDICINE SYSTEM FOR ISSUING COUNTRY-CUSTOMIZED PRESCRIPTION | December 2020 | April 2024 | Abandon | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16974270 | Energy of financial instruments | December 2020 | February 2022 | Abandon | 14 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17119515 | SECURITIES-BASED OFFER VERIFICATION AND PRESENTATION | December 2020 | November 2023 | Abandon | 35 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17046628 | ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION SYSTEM | October 2020 | April 2023 | Allow | 31 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17012688 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT OF THERAPEUTIC PRODUCTS | September 2020 | August 2023 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17008453 | THIRD-PARTY ACCESS TO SECURE HARDWARE | August 2020 | August 2023 | Abandon | 36 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17007924 | RISK ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR USE THEREWITH | August 2020 | September 2023 | Abandon | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16997774 | NEUROMODULATION THERAPY DATA SUBJECT CONSENT MATRIX | August 2020 | May 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16967647 | CLOUD BIG DATA-BASED SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSULIN PUMP INDIVIDUALIZED CONFIGURATION OPTIMIZATION | August 2020 | July 2023 | Allow | 36 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16984021 | MORTGAGE TRADING SYSTEM AND METHODS | August 2020 | April 2024 | Allow | 44 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16939618 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ADMINISTRATING A CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT | July 2020 | February 2024 | Allow | 43 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16937165 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MULTI-ACCOUNT TRACKING | July 2020 | August 2023 | Abandon | 37 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16900250 | APPARATUSES AND METHODS FOR GENERATING USER CONNECTIONS | June 2020 | June 2023 | Abandon | 36 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16881711 | EXCHANGE RISK CONTROLS | May 2020 | March 2023 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16874450 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROCESSING CARDLESS TRANSACTIONS | May 2020 | October 2023 | Allow | 41 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16844477 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR ROUTING TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINES, POINTS OF SALE, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, AND SOFTWARE WALLETS | April 2020 | January 2023 | Allow | 33 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16647163 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISPLAYING ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS | March 2020 | November 2023 | Abandon | 44 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16814948 | Systems and Methods for Generating Ordered Operation Sets According to Time-Series Data Projections | March 2020 | May 2024 | Abandon | 50 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16616945 | SCRIPT-BASED BLOCKCHAIN INTERACTION | November 2019 | February 2024 | Allow | 51 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16689642 | DISTRIBUTED CREDIT ACCOUNT INFORMATION | November 2019 | December 2023 | Allow | 49 | 7 | 0 | No | No |
| 16239345 | Securing Multi-Part Network Transactions with Automated Multi-Phase Network Traversal | January 2019 | July 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16166601 | METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND APPARATUS FOR OPTIMIZING EFFECTS OF TREATMENT WITH MEDICATION USING MEDICATION COMPLIANCE PATTERNS | October 2018 | November 2023 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 15620867 | MACHINE LEARNING ALGORITHM TO AUTOMATE HEALTHCARE COMMUNICATIONS USING NLG | June 2017 | July 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15479873 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO ASSIGN CLINICAL GOALS, CARE PLANS AND CARE PATHWAYS | April 2017 | September 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 15446734 | DIRECT SETTLEMENT OF HANDS-FREE TRANSACTIONS | March 2017 | January 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15392618 | EXECUTION OF CO-DEPENDENT TRANSACTIONS IN A TRANSACTION PROCESSING SYSTEM | December 2016 | September 2022 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15309757 | CARDLESS FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS | November 2016 | February 2023 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14979160 | AVOIDING ORDERS THAT CROSS | December 2015 | May 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 12 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14789527 | DISSEMINATION OF ORDER STATUS INFORMATION PRESENT ON AN ELECTRONIC EXCHANGE | July 2015 | September 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 12 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14543311 | REWARDS SYSTEM MAINTENANCE | November 2014 | February 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14088680 | TRADING AT A PRICE WITHIN A SPREAD MARKET | November 2013 | December 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13949464 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DYNAMICALLY CHANGING AN ELECTRONIC TRADE ORDER QUANTITY | July 2013 | May 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 17 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12130698 | WEBSITE MONETIZATION | May 2008 | July 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 15 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BARTLEY, KENNETH.
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, 29.4% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable reconsideration.
⚠ 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 BARTLEY, KENNETH works in Art Unit 3626 and has examined 34 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 35.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 49 months.
Examiner BARTLEY, KENNETH's allowance rate of 35.3% places them in the 7% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by BARTLEY, KENNETH receive 5.29 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 BARTLEY, KENNETH is 49 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.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +7.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BARTLEY, KENNETH. This interview benefit is in the 37% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 3.9% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 2% 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 12.5% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 14% 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 35.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 6% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 20.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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, 150.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 97% 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 33% 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 38% 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.