Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18822445 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SAFETY MONITORING OF PIPELINE OPERATION STATUS BASED ON SMART GAS INTERNET OF THINGS | September 2024 | May 2025 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18218912 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO ASSESS THE CONDITION OF A VEHICLE | July 2023 | February 2025 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18126915 | CROWDSOURCED AND SOCIAL MEDIA IP SEARCH AND ANALYTICS PLATFORM WITH STARTUP/INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIPS AND VIRTUAL INCUBATOR/ACCELERATOR INCLUDING AUTOMATED PATENT VALUATION SYSTEM | March 2023 | December 2024 | Abandon | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18166135 | Portable Remote Processing Apparatus for Property Transactions | February 2023 | September 2024 | Allow | 19 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17942861 | MANAGING AND MONITORING CAR-BATTERY AND TIRES TO ASSURE SAFE OPERATION AND PROVIDING ARRIVAL READY BATTERY AND TIRE SERVICES | September 2022 | September 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17771260 | EVALUATION SYSTEM OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, EVALUATION METHOD OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, EVALUATION PROGRAM, AND CORRECTION DATA | April 2022 | September 2025 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17571502 | System and Method for Arranging and Rating Dispute Resolution Services Through the Use of Mobile and Other Computing Devices | January 2022 | October 2024 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17605833 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ESTIMATION OF MALFUNCTION IN THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT | October 2021 | June 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17448107 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RESTORING NATURAL GAS SERVICE TO A NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM | September 2021 | February 2025 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17475265 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EXTRACTING DATA FROM CONTRACTS USING AI BASED NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING (NLP) | September 2021 | January 2025 | Abandon | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17375306 | METHOD FOR PROVIDING AN ITEM OF SATISFACTION INFORMATION ABOUT A CUSTOMER'S PREDICTED SATISFACTION WITH REGARD TO A MEDICAL DEVICE | July 2021 | July 2025 | Abandon | 48 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17358418 | VEHICLE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND VEHICLE MANAGEMENT METHOD | June 2021 | January 2025 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17126041 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DIGITALLY ONBOARDING CUSTOMERS FOR PROVIDING ONE OR MORE SOLUTIONS IN REAL-TIME | December 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17056247 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR AGREEING TO A COLLABORATION BETWEEN A FIRST SYSTEM AND A SECOND SYSTEM | November 2020 | January 2025 | Abandon | 50 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16778824 | COLLECTING, DISPLAYING, AND/OR STORING INFORMATION PERTAINING TO CONSENT | January 2020 | February 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16736257 | MULTI-POLICY PROCESSING OF A DOCUMENT | January 2020 | April 2023 | Abandon | 39 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16669890 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF OBJECTIVELY ASSESSING PROPERTIES FOR PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS | October 2019 | February 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16520722 | REAL-TIME RATE FILTERING SYSTEM | July 2019 | April 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16435415 | Processes for Electronic Administration of Justice Via AI-Gated eMIRANDA Application & Tangible Electronic Devices Generating Self Authenticated Outputs | June 2019 | November 2022 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 11830220 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCURING TAXICAB SERVICE | July 2007 | June 2019 | Allow | 60 | 13 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SHANKER, JULIE MEYERS.
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, 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.
⚠ 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 SHANKER, JULIE MEYERS works in Art Unit 3626 and has examined 13 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 7.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 48 months.
Examiner SHANKER, JULIE MEYERS's allowance rate of 7.7% places them in the 1% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by SHANKER, JULIE MEYERS receive 3.69 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 96% 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 SHANKER, JULIE MEYERS 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.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +14.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SHANKER, JULIE MEYERS. This interview benefit is in the 53% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 4.2% 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 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.
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.
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 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.