Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17106470 | METHODS, MEDIA, AND SYSTEMS FOR MULTI-PARTY SEARCHES | November 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 6 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17074092 | INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR INDUSTRIAL VEHICLES INCLUDING CYCLICAL RECURRING VEHICLE INFORMATION MESSAGE | October 2020 | April 2025 | Allow | 54 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16750523 | LOGICAL-TO-PHYSICAL PRODUCTION SYSTEM ALIGNMENT AND DEVELOPMENT | January 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15618273 | MAKE LINE OPTIMIZATION | June 2017 | August 2024 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 2 | Yes | Yes |
| 14871591 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DESKTOP-INVOKED IMAGE OR VIDEO CAPTURE | September 2015 | October 2017 | Allow | 24 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14824069 | USE OF BEHAVIORAL PORTRAITS IN THE CONDUCT OF E-COMMERCE | August 2015 | May 2019 | Allow | 45 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14798275 | INTERACTIVE SEAT BEACON WITH CUSTOMIZATION | July 2015 | October 2017 | Allow | 27 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14071456 | MACHINE, METHODS, AND PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR ELECTRONIC INVENTORY TRACKING | November 2013 | January 2017 | Allow | 39 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13673029 | Social Network-Assisted Electronic Payments | November 2012 | August 2015 | Allow | 33 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13360335 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OPERATING A PRODUCT RETURN SYSTEM | January 2012 | February 2015 | Allow | 36 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13330449 | DIFFERENTIAL BANDWIDTH METERING FOR NETWORKS WITH DIRECT PEERINGS | December 2011 | May 2015 | Allow | 41 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13158181 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRESENTATION OF FINANCIAL DATA | June 2011 | December 2012 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13133881 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING SERVICE TO END TERMINAL THAT USES AUTHENTICATION INFORMATION OF ANOTHER MOBILE COMMUNICATION TERMINAL, SERVICE SERVER, MOBILE COMMUNICATION TERMINAL, END TERMINAL, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | June 2011 | October 2014 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13153215 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR POINT OF SERVICE PAYMENT ACCEPTANCE VIA WIRELESS COMMUNICATION | June 2011 | January 2016 | Allow | 55 | 9 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 13117567 | NON-INSTRUMENTED PERISHABLE PRODUCT TRACKING IN A SUPPLY CHAIN | May 2011 | February 2013 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13053596 | INVENTORY ACROSS MULTIPLE MARKETPLACES | March 2011 | June 2013 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12916103 | IDENTIFYING SOURCE MATERIAL ASSOCIATED WITH FOOD PRODUCTS USING BILL OF MATERIAL | October 2010 | May 2012 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12750705 | GENERIC SYSTEM, METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DELINEATING ECOSYSTEM PROCESS INTERDEPENDENCIES, TRADEOFFS AND BEST PRACTICES | March 2010 | February 2014 | Allow | 47 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 12723371 | EXPENSE TRACKING, ELECTRONIC ORDERING, INVOICE PRESENTMENT, AND PAYMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD | March 2010 | June 2018 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 12569380 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INVENTORY MANAGEMENT | September 2009 | March 2019 | Allow | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12390409 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PLANNING CONFIGURABLE MANUFACTURING CAPACITY | February 2009 | November 2012 | Allow | 45 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12214599 | System and method for online sales by hosting site with RSS feeds controlled by user/buyer | June 2008 | April 2015 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner LUDWIG, PETER L.
With a 60.0% 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, 37.5% 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 LUDWIG, PETER L works in Art Unit 3627 and has examined 22 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 90.9%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 45 months.
Examiner LUDWIG, PETER L's allowance rate of 90.9% places them in the 75% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by LUDWIG, PETER L receive 4.23 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 97% 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 LUDWIG, PETER L is 45 months. This places the examiner in the 14% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -10.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LUDWIG, PETER L. This interview benefit is in the 4% 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, 18.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 20% 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 13.6% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 16% 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 54.5% of appeals filed. This is in the 26% 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 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 6% 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 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.