Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17256059 | SPOT PLANNING EVALUATION SYSTEM, SPOT PLANNING EVALUATION APPARATUS AND PROGRAM | December 2020 | December 2023 | Abandon | 35 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17129492 | System and Method for Optimizing Online Marketing Based Upon Relative Advertisement Placement | December 2020 | February 2023 | Allow | 26 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17104683 | ADVERTISEMENT SYSTEM, SERVER, AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING ADVERTISEMENT SYSTEM | November 2020 | March 2023 | Abandon | 28 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 16943030 | APPARATUS FOR DETECTING THE NUMBER OF PERSONS CONTACTED WITH ADVERTISING MEDIUM AND METHOD OF DETECTING THE NUMBER OF PERSONS CONTACTED WITH ADVERTISING MEDIUM | July 2020 | February 2023 | Abandon | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16932457 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CAPTURING ACCOUNT HOLDER CONSENT FOR TRANSACTION DATA COLLECTION | July 2020 | October 2023 | Allow | 39 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16914050 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETECTING FRAUDULENT ADVERTISEMENTS IN PAY-PER-CALL ADVERTISING | June 2020 | March 2023 | Allow | 32 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 15930541 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | May 2020 | April 2024 | Allow | 47 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16834924 | DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN ANALYTICS VIA HASHTAG DETECTION | March 2020 | November 2022 | Abandon | 31 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16752681 | PRODUCT EXPLORATION-BASED PROMOTION | January 2020 | November 2022 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16745115 | EXTENDING AUDIENCE REACH IN MESSAGING CAMPAIGNS USING PROBABILISTIC ID LINKING | January 2020 | December 2022 | Allow | 35 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16728739 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REAL-TIME REVENUE AND COST ATTRIBUTION ASSOCIATED WITH USER ACQUISITION | December 2019 | June 2024 | Abandon | 53 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 16456830 | METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR AUTOMATIC ITEM RECOMMENDATION | June 2019 | May 2024 | Abandon | 58 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16450478 | OPTIMIZING MACHINE LEARNED MODELS BASED ON DWELL TIME OF NETWORKED-TRANSMITTED CONTENT ITEMS | June 2019 | December 2023 | Abandon | 54 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16449222 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GEOGRAPHY-BASED TARGETED MARKETING OF ACTIVE OBSERVERS | June 2019 | December 2022 | Abandon | 42 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 16195748 | COLLECTING AND ANALYZING DATA FROM A MOBILE DEVICE | November 2018 | March 2023 | Allow | 52 | 7 | 0 | No | No |
| 16074408 | PROCESSOR SYSTEMS TO ESTIMATE AUDIENCE SIZES AND IMPRESSION COUNTS FOR DIFFERENT FREQUENCY INTERVALS | July 2018 | January 2023 | Abandon | 53 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15406539 | Social Media Influencer Group Management | January 2017 | November 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 13185372 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PROCESSING AND DISPLAYING CONTENT | July 2011 | July 2013 | Abandon | 24 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12909007 | REAL-TIME POINT REDEMPTION IN A MERCHANT REDEMPTION NETWORK | October 2010 | June 2013 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12786020 | Enhancing Photo Browsing through Music and Advertising | May 2010 | April 2013 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12729120 | Method of Rewarding On Time Bill Payment | March 2010 | October 2012 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12728473 | EFFECTIVE ATTENTION DISPOSING SYSTEM | March 2010 | September 2012 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12596622 | METHOD AND SYSTEM TO OFFER BEST PRICE DEAL AND SHARP TARGETED POINT OF PURCHASE ADVERTISEMENT IN E-RETAIL WEBSITE | March 2010 | September 2012 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12727520 | Digital Signage System And Display Terminal | March 2010 | December 2012 | Abandon | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12679035 | Positional Information Analysis Apparatus, Positional Information Analysis Method, and Positional Information Analysis System | March 2010 | August 2013 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12590342 | Search and storage engine having variable indexing for information associations and predictive modeling | November 2009 | September 2012 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12450916 | METHOD OF MANAGING A SHOPPING MALL SITE | October 2009 | September 2012 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12453359 | Interactive knowledge sales market database | May 2009 | January 2012 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12434023 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING UGC INCLUDING ADVERTISEMENT | May 2009 | February 2012 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12432183 | MOBILE DEVICE, NETWORK SERVER AND METHOD FOR EVALUATING CORRELATION BETWEEN ADVERTISEMENT INFORMATION AND USER BEHAVIOR | April 2009 | November 2012 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12428609 | METHOD FOR INTEGRATING INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING INTO VISUAL CONTENT | April 2009 | February 2012 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12410843 | AD GROUPS FOR USING ADVERTISEMENTS ACROSS PLACEMENTS | March 2009 | January 2012 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12407681 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ASSOCIATING ADVERTISING CONTENT WITH COMPUTER ENABLED MAPS | March 2009 | January 2012 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12401679 | System, Device and Method for Incorporating Randomly Selected Prizes with Transactions | March 2009 | December 2011 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12339124 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADVERTISING USING CLASSIFICATION INFORMATION | December 2008 | December 2011 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12338278 | DISCOUNT SYSTEM AND METHOD | December 2008 | October 2011 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12337476 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING PAY-PER-CLICK SATELLITE ON A USER DESKTOP | December 2008 | October 2011 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12334364 | IN-TEXT EMBEDDED ADVERTISING | December 2008 | August 2012 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 12331316 | GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION OF AN ADDRESSABLE SPOT GUIDE FOR ALTERNATE CONTENT INSERTION IN MULTICAST WIRELESS TRANSMISSION | December 2008 | May 2012 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 12315410 | System for displaying advertisements on vehicles | December 2008 | June 2013 | Abandon | 55 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 12315228 | Method of advertising | December 2008 | June 2011 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10221962 | System and method for manipulating internet-based advertisements | September 2002 | April 2012 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BUSCH, CHRISTOPHER CONRAD.
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 BUSCH, CHRISTOPHER CONRAD works in Art Unit 3682 and has examined 42 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 21.4%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 35 months.
Examiner BUSCH, CHRISTOPHER CONRAD's allowance rate of 21.4% places them in the 3% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by BUSCH, CHRISTOPHER CONRAD receive 2.43 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 66% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by BUSCH, CHRISTOPHER CONRAD is 35 months. This places the examiner in the 41% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +24.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BUSCH, CHRISTOPHER CONRAD. This interview benefit is in the 69% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 13.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 10% 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 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.
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 19% 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 2% 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, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 93% 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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 38% 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 44% 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.