Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18432760 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FORECASTING REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS | February 2024 | December 2024 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18518537 | REGISTRY OF ENTITIES OPTING INTO A UNIVERSAL CONTRACT | November 2023 | December 2024 | Abandon | 13 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18508970 | MACHINE EVALUATION OF CONTRACT TERMS | November 2023 | September 2024 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18379044 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR EVALUATING ASSIGNMENTS | October 2023 | November 2024 | Abandon | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18216580 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR QUALITY BASED RANKING OF PATENTS | June 2023 | October 2024 | Abandon | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18116281 | Quantifying Innovation and a Standardized and Data-Driven Approach to Determine the Value of Intangible Innovation Assets | March 2023 | June 2025 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17973099 | Systems and Methods for Generating a Home Score for a User Using a Home Score Component Model | October 2022 | January 2024 | Allow | 15 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18046546 | System and Method for Temporarily Renting Home Yard Properties | October 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17909559 | SERVICE PROVISION SYSTEM, SERVICE PROVISION METHOD, MANAGEMENT APPARATUS, ANDCOMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM | September 2022 | January 2025 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17693269 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A GLOBAL PATENT REGISTRY | March 2022 | December 2024 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17551632 | VISIT RECORD PROVIDING SYSTEM | December 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17266042 | METHOD FOR CARRYING OUT MAINTENANCE WORK ON A COMPLEX STRUCTURAL COMPONENT | August 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17443087 | BOOSTING SALES PRODUCTIVITY USING PERSONALIZED CONTENT GENERATOR FOR ONLINE SALES | July 2021 | June 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17284341 | PATENT STRATEGY CHART GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION METHOD, DIGITAL SYSTEM FOR ASSISTING IN GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF PATENT STRATEGY CHART, PATENT STRATEGY CHART, PATENT STRATEGY CHART GENERATION METHOD, MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, COMPUTER PROGRAM, AND PATENT STRATEGY CHART COMPONENT | April 2021 | June 2025 | Abandon | 50 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17207386 | ELECTRONIC BUSINESS CARD MANAGEMENT METHOD AND APPARATUS | March 2021 | October 2024 | Abandon | 43 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17142395 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IMPLEMENTING A DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT ADOPTION REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE | January 2021 | June 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 17096451 | AUTOMATED APPRAISAL ASSESSMENT | November 2020 | May 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16897067 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ANALYZING DOCUMENTS | June 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 57 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16639156 | RIGHTS MANAGEMENT METHOD, DEVICE AND SYSTEM, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | February 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16503107 | Analysis Of Intellectual-Property Data In Relation To Products And Services | July 2019 | January 2024 | Allow | 54 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16428611 | SMART CONTRACT TEMPLATE META-PROGRAMMING SYSTEM AND METHOD | May 2019 | January 2025 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14899871 | ANTI-COUNTERFEIT SIGNATURE | December 2015 | December 2019 | Allow | 48 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner YOUNG, MICHAEL C.
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, 50.0% 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 YOUNG, MICHAEL C works in Art Unit 3626 and has examined 21 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 23.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 43 months.
Examiner YOUNG, MICHAEL C's allowance rate of 23.8% 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 YOUNG, MICHAEL C receive 2.95 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 94% 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 YOUNG, MICHAEL C is 43 months. This places the examiner in the 4% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +26.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by YOUNG, MICHAEL C. This interview benefit is in the 77% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 8.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 1% 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 10.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 5% 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 15% 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 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 15% 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, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 4% 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 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 32% 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.