Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18402806 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A JUST IN TIME RECOMMENDATION ENGINE FOR ITEMS ALONG A TRAVEL PATH FOR A VEHICLE | January 2024 | February 2026 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18236976 | UNINTENTIONAL CONTROL RE-ENGAGEMENT PREVENTION | August 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18102493 | SYSTEM FOR TRACKING MODE OF OPERATION IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES | January 2023 | August 2025 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18146850 | GENERATING DYNAMIC INTERFACES PROVIDING INTELLIGENT MULTI-DEVICE SELECTABLE ELEMENTS FOR A TRANSPORTATION MATCHING SYSTEM | December 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17889316 | DRONE SYSTEM HAVING INTERACTIVE FETCHABLE DRONE | August 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 31 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17646101 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR GENERATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL PHASE INFORMATION SERVICE MESSAGE | December 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17505144 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PREDICTING UNSAFE APPROACH | October 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17205692 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REROUTING ROBOTS TO AVOID NO-GO ZONES | March 2021 | March 2026 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17172974 | TECHNOLOGIES FOR ENERGY SOURCE SCHEDULE OPTIMIZATION FOR HYBRID ARCHITECTURE VEHICLES | February 2021 | December 2024 | Abandon | 46 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17144701 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING THE HEIGHT OF AN AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT RELATIVE TO THE GROUND | January 2021 | April 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17115950 | METHOD, APPARATUS AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR DETECTING A LANE SHIFT USING PROBE DATA | December 2020 | November 2024 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16414144 | Selective Activation of Autonomous Vehicles | May 2019 | December 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14620293 | REAL-TIME SOCIAL GROUP BASED BIDDING SYSTEM | February 2015 | March 2017 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14270946 | REAL-TIME SOCIAL GROUP BASED BIDDING SYSTEM | May 2014 | March 2017 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner FLYNN, ABBY J.
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, 50.0% 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 FLYNN, ABBY J works in Art Unit 3663 and has examined 9 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 33.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 46 months.
Examiner FLYNN, ABBY J's allowance rate of 33.3% places them in the 5% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by FLYNN, ABBY J receive 3.22 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 90% 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 FLYNN, ABBY J is 46 months. This places the examiner in the 11% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +50.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by FLYNN, ABBY J. This interview benefit is in the 93% 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, 12.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 7% 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 25.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 34% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 98% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% 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.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 37% 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 40% 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.