Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16899640 | AUTOMATED COST CALCULATION FOR VIRTUALIZED INFRASTRUCTURE | June 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 58 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 15429647 | BANK CARD AND RESPONSE PROCESS TO A TRANSACTION REQUEST | February 2017 | October 2019 | Allow | 32 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14681502 | ADAPTIVE DYNAMIC BUDGETING | April 2015 | January 2018 | Allow | 33 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14576465 | INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT | December 2014 | March 2018 | Allow | 39 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14460659 | ADAPTIVE DYNAMIC BUDGETING | August 2014 | July 2017 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14070258 | METHOD FOR REMOVING CUSTOMER PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE | November 2013 | February 2019 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13693985 | PLATFORM-AS-A-SERVICE BILLING | December 2012 | July 2017 | Allow | 55 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13469931 | MOBILE IMAGE PAYMENT SYSTEM USING SHORT CODES | May 2012 | April 2017 | Allow | 59 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 13397261 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION WITH AN IC CHIP FOR SUBMISSION OF PIN DATA | February 2012 | September 2016 | Allow | 55 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13365643 | MANAGEMENT OF WORK PACKETS IN A SOFTWARE FACTORY | February 2012 | September 2012 | Allow | 8 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13046525 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRANSACTION PAYMENTS USING A MOBILE DEVICE | March 2011 | April 2017 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13042991 | INVENTORY MANAGEMENT | March 2011 | June 2013 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12979541 | Reading, Organizing and Manipulating Accounting Data | December 2010 | May 2014 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12829923 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INFORMATION AND COMPUTATION CLOSURES ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT | July 2010 | October 2012 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12825205 | ACTIVE CONTAINER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | June 2010 | October 2012 | Allow | 28 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12780219 | ACCOUNTING APPARATUS, ACCOUNTING METHOD AND COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM FOR RECORDING ACCOUNTING PROGRAM CODES | May 2010 | July 2012 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12642242 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING TAX LIABILITY IN RESPONSE TO A MOBILITY | December 2009 | February 2013 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12437496 | NOTICE AND NON-RESPONSE TRACKING | May 2009 | June 2014 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12367239 | METHOD AND SYSTEM THAT MONITORS SUPPLY OF PHYSICAL CONSUMABLES RELATIVE TO CONSUMPTION SPECIFICATIONS | February 2009 | July 2012 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12177645 | OPEN MARKETPLACE FOR DISTRIBUTED SERVICE ARBITRAGE WITH INTEGRATED RISK MANAGEMENT | July 2008 | November 2011 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12136673 | AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLING AVAILABILITY OF TASKS FOR PERFORMANCE BY HUMAN USERS | June 2008 | May 2012 | Allow | 47 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11724757 | Class object wrappers for document object model (DOM) elements for project task management system for managing project schedules over a network | March 2007 | July 2015 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MOORE, REVA R.
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, 100.0% 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.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner MOORE, REVA R works in Art Unit 3627 and has examined 22 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 95.5%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 40 months.
Examiner MOORE, REVA R's allowance rate of 95.5% places them in the 84% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by MOORE, REVA R receive 3.23 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 88% 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 MOORE, REVA R is 40 months. This places the examiner in the 24% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +25.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MOORE, REVA R. This interview benefit is in the 71% 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, 22.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 33% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 18.2% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 23% 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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 96% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 25.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 92% 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.