Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17119206 | VEHICLE EFFICIENCY EVALUATION SYSTEM, IN-VEHICLE DEVICE, MANAGEMENT EXECUTION DEVICE, AND APPLICATION PROGRAM | December 2020 | July 2024 | Abandon | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16973024 | SERVICE PROVIDING DEVICE, SERVICE PROVIDING METHOD, AND SERVICE PROVIDING PROGRAM | December 2020 | May 2024 | Abandon | 41 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17008546 | Systems And Methods For Voice Assisted Goods Delivery | August 2020 | October 2023 | Allow | 38 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16921105 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR GESTURE-BASED CROSS CHANNEL COMMERCE AND MARKETING | July 2020 | January 2024 | Allow | 43 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 16724879 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING LEVEL OF INFLUENCE IN A SOCIAL E-COMMERCE ENVIRONMENT | December 2019 | March 2024 | Abandon | 51 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16669795 | AGGREGATION AND USE OF INFORMATION RELATING TO A USER'S CONTEXT FOR PERSONALIZED ADVERTISEMENTS | October 2019 | May 2024 | Allow | 54 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16665155 | SCHEDULE TEMPLATE FOR A DIGITAL DISPLAY | October 2019 | February 2024 | Allow | 51 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16397686 | MACHINE LEARNING TECHNIQUES TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES OF AN ONLINE SERVICE | April 2019 | May 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16054367 | LOCATION PREDICTION | August 2018 | February 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA.
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 VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA works in Art Unit 3682 and has examined 9 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 44.4%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 51 months.
Examiner VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA's allowance rate of 44.4% places them in the 10% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA receive 3.78 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 95% 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 VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA is 51 months. This places the examiner in the 7% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +16.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by VANDERHORST, MARIA VICTORIA. This interview benefit is in the 57% 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, 15.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 13% 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, 66.7% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 58% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. If you have strong arguments, a PAC request may result in favorable reconsideration.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 33.3% of appeals filed. This is in the 5% 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 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.
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.