Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18602262 | FRAUD DETERRENCE FOR SECURE TRANSACTIONS | March 2024 | July 2024 | Allow | 4 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15354930 | Methods and Systems for Node-Based Website Design | November 2016 | March 2018 | Allow | 16 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14304832 | ELECTRONIC PAYMENT DEVICE | June 2014 | July 2016 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 14057058 | PORTABLE MULTIFUNCTION DEVICE WITH MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS | October 2013 | May 2014 | Allow | 7 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 14053844 | RECEIPT INSURANCE SYSTEMS AND METHODS | October 2013 | May 2014 | Allow | 7 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13923601 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO COLLECTIONS CYCLE OPTIMIZATION | June 2013 | June 2014 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13790304 | PORTABLE HAND-HELD MULTI-FUNCTION DEVICE FOR STORING, MANAGING AND COMBINING REWARDS | March 2013 | January 2014 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13791300 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REUSING PAYMENT AUTHORIZATIONS | March 2013 | June 2014 | Allow | 15 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13771631 | SECURITIES TRADING SYSTEM AND DEVICE | February 2013 | January 2015 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 13767359 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING REWARDS TO A PORTABLE COMPUTING DEVICE AT THE POINT OF SALE | February 2013 | June 2014 | Allow | 16 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13753175 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EXCHANGING INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH AND TRADE ORDER EXECUTION SERVICES | January 2013 | September 2013 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13649704 | System, Method, and Computer-Readable Storage Medium for Payment of Online Purchases via a Portable Computing Device | October 2012 | February 2018 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13607098 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING REWARDS TO A PORTABLE COMPUTING DEVICE AT THE POINT OF SALE | September 2012 | February 2013 | Allow | 5 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13543434 | PORTABLE HAND-HELD MULTI-FUNCTION DEVICE WITH MULTIPLE TRANSACTION AND REWARD ACCOUNTS | July 2012 | May 2013 | Allow | 10 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13528573 | Consular Kiosks and Methods | June 2012 | June 2013 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13464919 | Methods and Systems for Node-Based Website Design | May 2012 | August 2014 | Abandon | 27 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 13452317 | PORTABLE HAND-HELD MULTI-FUNCTION DEVICE FOR STORING, MANAGING AND COMBINING REWARDS | April 2012 | February 2013 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 13292500 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EXCHANGING INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH AND TRADE ORDER EXECUTION SERVICES | November 2011 | October 2012 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13276392 | AGGREGATOR-BASED ELECTRIC MICROGRID FOR RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS INCORPORATING RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES | October 2011 | September 2013 | Allow | 23 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13272871 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COMPLIANCE AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT | October 2011 | May 2014 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13102803 | METHOD OF OPERATING A SELF-SERVICE TERMINAL TO PROVIDE ON-DEMAND POSTAGE STAMP LABELS TO A POSTAGE STAMP BUYER AND A SELF-SERVICE TERMINAL THEREFOR | May 2011 | June 2016 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 13089452 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING REWARDS TO A PORTABLE COMPUTING DEVICE AT THE POINT OF SALE | April 2011 | August 2012 | Allow | 16 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 13019903 | System and Method for Predictive Payment Authorizations | February 2011 | October 2015 | Allow | 57 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12954814 | ONLINE PAYMENT TRANSFER AND IDENTITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD | November 2010 | March 2015 | Allow | 51 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12925312 | Method for future payment transactions | October 2010 | December 2012 | Allow | 26 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12904475 | RETIREMENT AND FINANCIAL PLANNING CALCULATOR APPARATUS AND METHODS | October 2010 | August 2011 | Allow | 10 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12825505 | METHOD, LANGUAGE, AND SYSTEM FOR PARALLEL ALGORITHMIC TRADING AND OVERSEEING TRADING ACTIVITY | June 2010 | November 2016 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12823733 | Employing Spillover Tables for Data Updates | June 2010 | December 2013 | Allow | 41 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12731888 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO COLLECTIONS CYCLE OPTIMIZATION | March 2010 | April 2013 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12719537 | ORDER MATCHING SYSTEM | March 2010 | September 2011 | Allow | 18 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12357623 | COMPENSATION MODEL FOR NETWORK SERVICES | January 2009 | October 2016 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12020509 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING A METRIC OF FINANCIAL STATUS RELATIVE TO A FINANCIAL GOAL | January 2008 | August 2010 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11617847 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROFILING CONSUMERS AND CREATING A RECOMMENDED OR CUSTOM CARD | December 2006 | February 2013 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11646884 | RETIREMENT AND FINANCIAL PLANNING CALCULATOR APPARATUS AND METHODS | December 2006 | July 2010 | Allow | 43 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11614747 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONDUCTING TRANSACTIONS WITH OLIGOPOLISTIC ENTITIES | December 2006 | January 2010 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10835547 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR USING MULTI-FUNCTION CARDS FOR STORING, MANAGING AND AGGREGATING REWARD POINTS | April 2004 | February 2010 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ROBINSON, KITO 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 ROBINSON, KITO R works in Art Unit 3664 and has examined 35 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 97.1%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 23 months.
Examiner ROBINSON, KITO R's allowance rate of 97.1% places them in the 91% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by ROBINSON, KITO R receive 2.74 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 91% 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 ROBINSON, KITO R is 23 months. This places the examiner in the 78% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +7.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ROBINSON, KITO R. This interview benefit is in the 39% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 22.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 19% 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 44.4% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 62% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 15% 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, 80.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 92% 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's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 2.9% of allowed cases (in the 82% 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 35% 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.