Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17103312 | PROVIDING PERSONALIZED ITEM RECOMMENDATIONS DURING IN-STORE SHOPPING EXPERIENCE | November 2020 | March 2024 | Allow | 40 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17065365 | WEAR-BASED REPLACEMENT FOR ATHLETIC EQUIPMENT | October 2020 | July 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17043110 | INFORMATION RECOMMENDATION METHOD AND DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | September 2020 | June 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16872423 | MACHINE LEARNING BASED TIERED GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE (GUI) | May 2020 | September 2024 | Abandon | 52 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16830934 | IDENTIFICATION OF TREND GAPS | March 2020 | April 2024 | Abandon | 49 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15854502 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PEER-TO-PEER REWARD POINTS TRANSFER OVER MOBILE DEVICES | December 2017 | May 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15825757 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR TARGETED ADVERTISING BASED ON NATURAL LANGUAGE ANALYTICS | November 2017 | June 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 11 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15583221 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR TARGETED ADVERTISING BASED ON NATURAL LANGUAGE ANALYTICS | May 2017 | June 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 11 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14862148 | Method And System For Delivery Of Context-Specific Content To A Mobile Device, Triggered By Changes In The Mobile Device's Location | September 2015 | June 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14449848 | ENGAGEMENT POINT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | August 2014 | February 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 13 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SHORTER, RASHIDA R.
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.
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.
⚠ 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 SHORTER, RASHIDA R works in Art Unit 3629 and has examined 10 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 10.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 10000 months.
Examiner SHORTER, RASHIDA R's allowance rate of 10.0% places them in the 2% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by SHORTER, RASHIDA R receive 7.60 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 SHORTER, RASHIDA R is 10000 months. This places the examiner in the 1% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +11.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SHORTER, RASHIDA R. This interview benefit is in the 45% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 1.9% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 2% 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 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.
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 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 1% 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.
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 39% 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.