Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17107737 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADDING ITEMS TO AN ELECTRONIC ORDER | November 2020 | August 2023 | Allow | 32 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17084892 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF MY WISH LIST GIFT FULFILLMENT | October 2020 | November 2022 | Abandon | 25 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16949487 | A NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM, METHOD, AND CLIENT DEVICE FOR INSERTING CODE INTO A DOCUMENT OBJECT MODEL OF A GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE (GUI) FOR UNIFIED PRESENTATION OF DATA | October 2020 | April 2023 | Allow | 29 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17039542 | Methods and System For Sensor-Based Layout Generation | September 2020 | August 2023 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17034135 | RESTAURANT CONTROL PROCESS | September 2020 | December 2022 | Allow | 27 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17008492 | SYSTEMS FOR A DIGITAL SHOWROOM WITH VIRTUAL REALITY AND AUGMENTED REALITY | August 2020 | September 2022 | Allow | 25 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 16959525 | SALES OPERATIONS ASSISTANCE DEVICE, SALES OPERATIONS ASSISTANCE METHOD, AND SALES OPERATIONS ASSISTANCE NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM | July 2020 | July 2023 | Allow | 36 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16905192 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PROVIDING A RECOMMENDATION | June 2020 | September 2022 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16891985 | CROWD SOURCE SHOPPING ENVIRONMENT MAPS AND CUSTOM SHOPPING ROUTE PLANNING | June 2020 | March 2024 | Abandon | 45 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16880479 | COMMODITY CUSTOMIZATION METHOD, APPARATUS, DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM | May 2020 | March 2023 | Abandon | 34 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 16878778 | METHOD, APPARATUS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR CONSTRUCTING AN UPDATED ORDER INCLUDING INFORMATION FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES | May 2020 | April 2023 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16863300 | ELECTRONIC PURCHASE ORDER GENERATION METHOD AND DEVICE, TERMINAL AND STORAGE MEDIUM | April 2020 | June 2023 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16828785 | GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE-BASED PLATFORM SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR X (RFX) RESPONSE COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION | March 2020 | April 2024 | Abandon | 49 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16815846 | A METHOD, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM, AND SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING RECOMMENDED SEARCH TERMS FOR A USER OF AN ONLINE CONCIERGE SYSTEM | March 2020 | September 2022 | Allow | 31 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16702779 | HEALTH BASED PROPERTY EVALUATION | December 2019 | April 2024 | Abandon | 52 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16701341 | PRODUCT RANKING SYSTEM TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES IN INTERACTING WITH E-COMMERCE PLATFORMS | December 2019 | September 2023 | Abandon | 46 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16666507 | VEHICLE-MOUNTED INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, PROGRAM, AND CONTROL METHOD | October 2019 | October 2022 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16558831 | A METHOD, SYSTEM, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM FOR ELECTRONICALLY ACCEPTING AND TRANSMITTING PURCHASE ORDERS ON AN ONLINE PLATFORM | September 2019 | January 2023 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16536124 | COMMODITY DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM | August 2019 | November 2022 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16475163 | SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING REMOVALS SIMULATION USING VIRTUAL REALITY AND AUGMENTED REALITY AND BROKERING REAL ESTATE THERETHROUGH | July 2019 | November 2022 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16447390 | CONTROL METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR MULTI-CURRENCY PRICING | June 2019 | October 2022 | Abandon | 40 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16469933 | METHODS FOR SAFE DELIVERY OF A PACKAGE | June 2019 | August 2023 | Allow | 50 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16437028 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF PROVIDING CUSTOMER ID SERVICE WITH DATA SKEW REMOVAL | June 2019 | August 2022 | Allow | 39 | 6 | 0 | No | No |
| 16417373 | COMPUTER STORAGE MEDIA, METHOD, AND SYSTEM FOR EXPLORING AND RECOMMENDING MATCHING PRODUCTS ACROSS CATEGORIES | May 2019 | March 2024 | Allow | 58 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16183188 | AN APPARATUS, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM, AND COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTED LEDGER MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE PRODUCTS | November 2018 | November 2022 | Allow | 48 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16182485 | A DEVICE, METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY MACHINE-READABLE MEDIUM FOR A SINGLE PAGE SLIDE CHECKOUT | November 2018 | August 2022 | Allow | 46 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15884071 | INTELLIGENT RECOMMENDATION ENGINE | January 2018 | March 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15798508 | SERVERS AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM FOR REGISTERING AND MONITORING CONSUMABLES | October 2017 | July 2022 | Allow | 56 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BARLOW, KATHERINE A.
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, 75.0% 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 BARLOW, KATHERINE A works in Art Unit 3684 and has examined 28 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 60.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 39 months.
Examiner BARLOW, KATHERINE A's allowance rate of 60.7% places them in the 22% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by BARLOW, KATHERINE A receive 3.46 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 BARLOW, KATHERINE A is 39 months. This places the examiner in the 27% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +32.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BARLOW, KATHERINE A. This interview benefit is in the 79% 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, 21.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 27% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 3.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 6% 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, 100.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 77% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
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, 33.3% 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 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.