Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18422453 | INSPECTION SYSTEM AND CASH REGISTER SYSTEM | January 2024 | October 2024 | Abandon | 8 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18356978 | System and Method for Sponsored Meal Requests and Dispensing | July 2023 | March 2025 | Abandon | 20 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18299703 | QUALITY, AVAILABILITY AND AI MODEL PREDICTIONS | April 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 24 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 18120118 | ARTICLE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND ARTICLE MANAGEMENT METHOD | March 2023 | October 2024 | Abandon | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17855056 | Point-of-Sale (POS) Operation System | June 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17742895 | READING DEVICE AND METHOD | May 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17663166 | REVENUE RECONCILIATION SERVICE IN HOSPITALITY BOOKING SYSTEM | May 2022 | January 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17573634 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CAPTURING CONSISTENT STANDARDIZED PHOTOGRAPHS AND USING PHOTOGRAPHS FOR CATEGORIZING PRODUCTS | January 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17565084 | REGISTER MACHINE FOR A CHECKOUT SYSTEM | December 2021 | December 2024 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17552373 | SETTLEMENT DEVICE AND PROGRAM | December 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17541303 | COMMODITY SALES DATA PROCESSING DEVICE AND METHOD | December 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17446930 | DOMESTIC APPLIANCE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM | September 2021 | June 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17400532 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR POINT OF SALE PAYMENT USING A MOBILE DEVICE | August 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 39 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17245358 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR DYNAMIC PREDICTION AND UPDATE OF TAKEOUT TIMES | April 2021 | February 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16534566 | POS SYSTEM AND PAYMENT METHOD | August 2019 | October 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | No | No |
| 16533102 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ITEM CATEGORY FOOTAGE RECOMMENDATION | August 2019 | November 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16428157 | DETECTION AND INTERPRETATION OF VISUAL INDICATORS | May 2019 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 16333456 | POINT OF SALE (POS) SYSTEM, MASTER DATA MAINTENANCE METHOD AND POS TERMINAL DEVICE | March 2019 | October 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | No | No |
| 16292854 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR VEHICLE MANAGEMENT | March 2019 | March 2025 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16043369 | METHODS AND A TRANSACTION TERMINAL FOR TRANSACTION MERGE AND TRANSFER | July 2018 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 11 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner WERONSKI, MATTHEW S.
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, 66.7% 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 WERONSKI, MATTHEW S works in Art Unit 3627 and has examined 19 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 21.1%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 39 months.
Examiner WERONSKI, MATTHEW S's allowance rate of 21.1% 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 WERONSKI, MATTHEW S receive 4.05 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 100% 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 WERONSKI, MATTHEW S is 39 months. This places the examiner in the 10% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +68.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by WERONSKI, MATTHEW S. This interview benefit is in the 99% 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, 4.2% 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 7.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 3% 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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 96% percentile among all examiners. 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, 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.