Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18604454 | TECHNIQUES FOR TRAINING A NEURAL NETWORK TO DYNAMICALLY PREDICT ORDER FULFILLMENT | March 2024 | April 2025 | Abandon | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18373166 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FRICTIONLESS SELF-CHECKOUT MERCHANDISE PURCHASING | September 2023 | April 2025 | Abandon | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18135428 | Technologies for Using Machine Learning to Manage Product Catalogs | April 2023 | October 2024 | Allow | 18 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18125485 | PERSON TRANSACTION TRACKING | March 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18157245 | RE-USING PAYMENT INSTRUMENTS FOR IN-STORE USE SYSTEMS AND METHODS | January 2023 | October 2024 | Allow | 21 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18155352 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING AN ON-SHELF AVAILABILITY STATUS OF AN ITEM WITHIN A RETAIL LOCATION | January 2023 | May 2025 | Allow | 28 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18150660 | APPARATUSES, COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHODS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR AUTOMATIC PRODUCT VERIFICATION AND SHELF PRODUCT GAP ANALYSIS | January 2023 | January 2025 | Allow | 25 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17936232 | CART-BASED AVAILABILITY DETERMINATION FOR AN ONLINE CONCIERGE SYSTEM | September 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 32 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17952618 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | September 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17814506 | PAIRING A MOBILE DEVICE WITH A MERCHANT TRANSACTION DEVICE | July 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17866746 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR INVENTORY MANAGEMENT FOR BLOCKCHAIN-BASED TRANSACTIONS | July 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17847212 | SYSTEM FOR MANAGING PLACING RETAIL PRODUCTS ON STORE SHELVES | June 2022 | October 2024 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17741100 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROCESSING ELECTRONIC REQUESTS | May 2022 | November 2024 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17729982 | RESOURCE TRANSFER VALIDATION WITHIN A METAVERSE | April 2022 | December 2024 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17722130 | Systems, Methods, Kits, and Apparatuses for Digital Product Network Systems and Biology-Based Value Chain Networks | April 2022 | February 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17708218 | IN-SCOPE AND OUT-OF-SCOPE RFID-BASED ITEM MANAGEMENT | March 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17700217 | GEOLOCATION COMPLIANCE FOR A MOBILE WORKFORCE | March 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17541305 | SERVER AND METHOD | December 2021 | May 2025 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17527973 | INVOICE PROCESSING PLATFORM | November 2021 | October 2024 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17337386 | DATA-DRIVEN REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND MATCHING | June 2021 | December 2024 | Allow | 42 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17245403 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DEVICE INITIALIZATION BY SECONDARY USER | April 2021 | February 2025 | Allow | 46 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17231243 | PROVISIONING CONTROL APPARATUS, SYSTEM AND METHOD | April 2021 | May 2025 | Allow | 49 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 17125276 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR MANAGING PRODUCT EXPIRATION | December 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17112459 | CONTROL TOWER AND ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT PLATFORM WITH ROBOTIC PROCESS AUTOMATION LAYER TO AUTOMATE ACTIONS FOR SUBSET OF APPLICATIONS BENEFITTING VALUE CHAIN NETWORK ENTITIES | December 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17083055 | LOCATING, IDENTIFYING, AND SHIFTING OBJECTS IN AUTOMATED OR SEMI-AUTOMATED FASHION INCLUDING DURING TRANSIT | October 2020 | January 2025 | Allow | 51 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17017380 | REAL-TIME EXPENSE AUDITING AND MACHINE LEARNING SYSTEM | September 2020 | October 2024 | Allow | 50 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16991570 | MULTI-BOOK ALLOCATIONS WITH SNAPSHOT VERIFICATION | August 2020 | November 2024 | Abandon | 51 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16991344 | OBJECT-AWARE TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES MONITORING AND EARLY WARNING BY COMBINING VISUAL AND THERMAL SENSING SENSING | August 2020 | April 2025 | Allow | 56 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16927662 | OPTIMIZED ORDER FULFILLMENT FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES | July 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 56 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16864852 | UTILIZING MACHINE LEARNING TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN IN-PERSON CUSTOMER FOLLOWS A MERCHANT ON SOCIAL MEDIA | May 2020 | November 2024 | Abandon | 55 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16747300 | PHOTO-BASED INVENTORY SYSTEM AND METHOD OF USE | January 2020 | May 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 16661811 | PRODUCT INFORMATION PREPARATION SYSTEM | October 2019 | May 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16586287 | REAL-TIME SHELF INVENTORY AND NOTIFICATION | September 2019 | October 2024 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16349157 | ELECTRONIC PAYMENT PROCESSING | May 2019 | February 2025 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15481399 | RFID SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRACKING ASSETS | April 2017 | November 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BURSUM, KIMBERLY SUZANNE.
With a 50.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. 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, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.
✓ 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 BURSUM, KIMBERLY SUZANNE works in Art Unit 3627 and has examined 34 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 52.9%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 41 months.
Examiner BURSUM, KIMBERLY SUZANNE's allowance rate of 52.9% places them in the 9% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by BURSUM, KIMBERLY SUZANNE receive 3.26 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 98% 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 BURSUM, KIMBERLY SUZANNE is 41 months. This places the examiner in the 7% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +5.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BURSUM, KIMBERLY SUZANNE. This interview benefit is in the 31% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 15.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 6% 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 13.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 7% 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, 50.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 43% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show below-average success with this examiner. Consider whether your arguments are strong enough to warrant a PAC request.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 60.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 31% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 66.7% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.
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.