USPTO Examiner GOMEZ CHRISTOPHER ALBERT - Art Unit 3628

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17131268MODULAR DELIVERY VEHICLE WITH ACCESS LOCKERSDecember 2020July 2022Allow1920YesNo
17131612DYNAMIC TOURIST TRAVEL PLANNER SERVICEDecember 2020June 2025Abandon5440YesNo
17115062AUTOMATED VALET PARKING SYSTEMDecember 2020August 2023Abandon3220YesNo
17102231SYSTEM FOR MANAGING THE USE OF EXERCISE EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIESNovember 2020March 2024Abandon3940YesNo
17097887SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ITEM REDELIVERY USING COMPUTER READABLE CODESNovember 2020July 2024Abandon4440NoNo
17081730SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PACKAGE DETECTION AND SECURE DELIVERYOctober 2020July 2024Abandon4440NoNo
17074530LOCKER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMOctober 2020February 2025Allow5250NoNo
17019282PACKAGE DELIVERY VERIFICATIONSeptember 2020July 2024Abandon4640YesNo
16980179INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, CONTROL METHOD, AND PROGRAMSeptember 2020June 2024Abandon4520YesNo
16986530TASK DISPATCHING METHOD AND APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUMAugust 2020January 2023Abandon2930YesNo
16964099INFORMATION PROMPTJuly 2020May 2023Abandon3310NoNo
16921763VEHICULAR FLEET ROUTING SYSTEM AND METHODJuly 2020December 2023Abandon4150YesNo
16917699HUB-BASED DISTRIBUTION AND DELIVERY NETWORK FOR AUTONOMOUS TRUCKING SERVICESJune 2020May 2023Allow3440YesNo
16810757PRE-EVENT TRIGGERS FOR EXTENDED TRAVEL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSMarch 2020September 2023Abandon4340YesNo
16636074METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR IMPROVING SPEED AND EFFICIENCY OF DELIVERY OF GOODSFebruary 2020February 2024Abandon4840NoNo
16778716COMPOSITE ASSET OPTION POOLJanuary 2020August 2022Allow3130YesNo
16746622SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CREATING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DELIVERY OBJECTS AND ASSIGNING DELIVERY OBJECT OWNERSJanuary 2020January 2025Abandon6090YesNo
16733623ESTIMATING APPARATUSJanuary 2020June 2023Abandon4120NoNo
16729757UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE ITEM DELIVERYDecember 2019June 2023Allow4140YesNo
16727821AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE DELIVERY MONITORINGDecember 2019September 2022Allow3340YesNo
16621458PICK-UP/DROP-OFF MANAGEMENT DEVICE, PICK-UP/DROP-OFF MANAGEMENT METHOD, AND PROGRAMDecember 2019December 2022Abandon3620YesNo
16705529PACKAGE SHIPPING SYSTEM BY USING CHARACTERISTIC IDENTIFIER AND METHOD THEREOFDecember 2019December 2021Abandon2410NoNo
16703994SYSTEM FOR SECURE PACKAGE DROP-OFF AND PICK-UPDecember 2019March 2022Abandon2720NoNo
16696147LOCATION-SPECIFIC OPTIMIZED IN-STORE CARTONIZATIONNovember 2019February 2022Allow2620YesNo
16611946ROBOT DELIVERIES BASED ON PERSONAL DATANovember 2019May 2022Allow3030YesNo
16580484SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RETURNING LOST ITEMSSeptember 2019September 2023Allow4880YesNo
16540125CALCULATION OF A TRANSPORTATION ROUTE BASED ON A CHARACTERISTIC CHANGE OF A PART DURING TRANSPORTATIONAugust 2019November 2021Abandon2710NoNo
16535679TRACKING OF TRANSPORT TRANSFERSAugust 2019August 2023Abandon4840YesNo
16529139INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAMAugust 2019March 2023Abandon4450YesNo
16518772Systems and Methods for Scheduling and Performing Self-Guided Tours of Multi-Unit Residential FacilitiesJuly 2019October 2022Allow3940YesNo
16502390AUTOMATED ITINERARY MANAGEMENTJuly 2019June 2024Abandon5970YesNo
16454996DYNAMICALLY GENERATING VISUALIZATION DATA BASED ON SHIPPING EVENTSJune 2019May 2023Allow4750YesNo
16471372DELIVERY SYSTEMS AND METHODSJune 2019November 2022Abandon4140NoNo
16444554Systems and Methods for Improvements to Vehicle Routing Including Back-End OperationsJune 2019April 2022Abandon3420YesNo
16413590HYBRID PRICE PRESENTATION STRATEGY USING A PROBABILISTIC HOTEL DEMAND FORECAST MODELMay 2019September 2024Abandon6040YesYes
16346153ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING DELIVERY INFORMATION THEREFORApril 2019June 2022Abandon3840NoNo
16396189HOUSING INFORMATION PROVIDING SYSTEMApril 2019February 2022Abandon3420NoNo
16343388SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FACILITATING FREIGHT TRANSPORTATIONApril 2019February 2025Abandon6070YesNo
16386661USE OF GEOSPATIAL COORDINATE SYSTEMS FOR TRACKING ITEM DELIVERYApril 2019January 2025Abandon6090YesNo
16382500TRANSPORTATION AND SHIPPING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMApril 2019January 2021Allow2100YesNo
16381030DELIVERY PLANNING DEVICE, DELIVERY PLANNING SYSTEM, AND DELIVERY PLANNING METHODApril 2019December 2022Abandon4450YesNo
16373541APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CONTAINER INTERFACE OPERATIONSApril 2019April 2024Allow6030YesYes
16371961METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING A RIDE HAILING PICKUP POINT BASED ON STEP COUNT INFORMATIONApril 2019October 2023Abandon5440YesNo
16370515METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DELIVERY OPTIMIZATIONMarch 2019December 2023Abandon5680YesNo
16361138RESERVATION SYSTEM FOR FACILITATING REAL-TIME MANAGEMENT OF ROOM RESOURCESMarch 2019June 2021Abandon2710NoNo
16354851CONCEALED MAILING INFORMATION SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USING ALTERNATIVE INFORMATION FOR PROVIDING A SHIPPING ADDRESS FOR MAILING WITH AN OPTION OF RUNNING ENCRYPTED INFORMATIONMarch 2019June 2021Abandon2710NoNo
16294389COMPUTER-BASED AUTOMATED ACQUISITION SYSTEMMarch 2019May 2021Abandon2610NoNo
16329304MERCHANDISE SEARCH PROGRAM AND METHOD IN MERCHANDISE SHIPPING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMFebruary 2019December 2024Abandon6050NoNo
16285804DYNAMIC DISTRIBUTED SMART CONTRACTINGFebruary 2019December 2023Abandon5750NoYes
16278732UPDATED MEETING ROOM RESERVATIONFebruary 2019April 2021Abandon2610NoNo
16259187RESERVATION MANAGEMENT METHOD AND RESERVATION MANAGEMENT DEVICEJanuary 2019September 2024Abandon6080YesNo
16234102SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MONITORING AN ON-DEMAND SERVICEDecember 2018October 2021Abandon3310NoNo
16232835DINING GROUP INTEREST CONNECTION SYSTEMDecember 2018March 2023Abandon5140YesNo
16232219PREDICTIVE FRAMEWORK FOR ADMISSION PASS VALUATIONDecember 2018April 2021Abandon2710NoNo
16306577CONTAINER TRACKING SYSTEMS AND METHODSDecember 2018October 2022Abandon4730YesNo
16093499METHOD, SOFTWARE, AND AN APPARATUS FOR INSPECTION OF SHIPMENTSOctober 2018March 2024Abandon6040NoNo
16130902METHODS FOR DELIVERY TO MULTIPLE LOCATIONS USING AUTONOMOUS VEHICLESSeptember 2018June 2023Abandon5720NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner GOMEZ, CHRISTOPHER ALBERT.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
2
Examiner Affirmed
2
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
15.6%
Lower than average

What This Means

With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
3
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
3
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
8.2%
Lower than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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, 0.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is less effective here than in most other areas.

Strategic Recommendations

Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.

Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner GOMEZ, CHRISTOPHER ALBERT - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner GOMEZ, CHRISTOPHER ALBERT works in Art Unit 3628 and has examined 57 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 22.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 41 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner GOMEZ, CHRISTOPHER ALBERT's allowance rate of 22.8% places them in the 3% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by GOMEZ, CHRISTOPHER ALBERT receive 3.63 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 93% 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by GOMEZ, CHRISTOPHER ALBERT is 41 months. This places the examiner in the 22% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +29.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by GOMEZ, CHRISTOPHER ALBERT. This interview benefit is in the 76% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 9.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 5% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 0.0% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 33.3% of appeals filed. This is in the 5% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 133.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 96% 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 Cooperation and Flexibility

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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.
  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.