Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15607577 | VOICE ACTIVATED HOTEL ROOM MONITOR | May 2017 | October 2019 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15296866 | GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION MAPPING USING NETWORK SIGNAL STRENGTH | October 2016 | November 2018 | Allow | 25 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 15290942 | FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN AUTOMATION GROCERY INFORMATION SYSTEM AND METHOD | October 2016 | April 2019 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14845762 | System And Method For Facilitating Communication Of Data Among Entities In An Electronic Trading Network | September 2015 | September 2018 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14822948 | SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND APPARATUSES FOR DISPLAYING PURCHASE TRANSACTION ELEMENTS BASED ON A DETERMINED HIERARCHY | August 2015 | May 2019 | Allow | 45 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14126284 | DISTRIBUTED TRANSACTION PROCESSING SYSTEM AND METHODS | January 2014 | August 2018 | Allow | 56 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12808664 | KINETIC ENERGY RECOVERY AND ELECTRIC DRIVE FOR VEHICLES | June 2010 | March 2014 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 12694567 | VEHICLE BRAKE CONTROLLER | January 2010 | October 2012 | Allow | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12495553 | PHOTOVOLTAIC DEVICES INSPECTION APPARATUS AND METHOD OF DETERMINING DEFECTS IN PHOTOVOLTAIC DEVICE | June 2009 | September 2012 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12351236 | REFERENTIAL INTERFACE TO ENABLE COMMERCIAL INTERACTION BETWEEN ENTITIES | January 2009 | July 2011 | Allow | 30 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12197398 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PREPARING A SET OF PAIRED IDENTIFICATION LABELS | August 2008 | December 2010 | Allow | 27 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12045449 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR THREE-DIMENSIONAL PATH PLANNING TO AVOID OBSTACLES USING MULTIPLE PLANES | March 2008 | September 2011 | Allow | 43 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12022271 | STORAGE MEDIUM FOR FACILITATING PARTS PROCUREMENT AND PRODUCTION PLANNING ACROSS AN EXTENDED SUPPLY CHAIN | January 2008 | November 2008 | Allow | 9 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 11971192 | IT ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | January 2008 | October 2013 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12002498 | Recipes management system | December 2007 | December 2012 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11449341 | METHOD TO MONITOR AMOUNT OF USAGE OF APPLICATIONS IN A SERVER AND THEIR BILLING | June 2006 | February 2012 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 11391758 | MANAGING HOME INVENTORY | March 2006 | December 2010 | Allow | 57 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10732455 | SHEET METAL EQUIPMENT SALES METHOD AND SYSTEM THEREFOR | December 2003 | August 2009 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10730598 | REFERENTIAL INTERFACE TO ENABLE COMMERCIAL INTERACTION BETWEEN ENTITIES | December 2003 | November 2008 | Allow | 59 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10645181 | INFORMATION PROVIDING SYSTEM AND METHOD THEREFOR | August 2003 | September 2009 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 10254572 | INFORMATION PROVIDING SYSTEM FOR PROCESSING DATA IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDER | September 2002 | June 2009 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner DANNEMAN, PAUL.
With a 100.0% 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, 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.
✓ 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 DANNEMAN, PAUL works in Art Unit 3663 and has examined 21 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 100.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 45 months.
Examiner DANNEMAN, PAUL's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 99% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by DANNEMAN, PAUL receive 1.81 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 38% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by DANNEMAN, PAUL 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 +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by DANNEMAN, PAUL. This interview benefit is in the 18% 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, 36.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 83% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.
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 4% 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 60.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 37% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 14.3% of allowed cases (in the 96% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 41% 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.