USPTO Examiner LEVINE ADAM L - Art Unit 3684

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17106699SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING AN ALIMENTARY PREPARATION PROVIDERNovember 2020November 2022Allow2350YesNo
17095972REPLACEMENT OF CONTENT ITEMSNovember 2020March 2024Abandon4020YesNo
17093149SELLER VERIFICATION OF A REQUEST TO SELL AN EXCHANGE ITEM IN AN EXCHANGE ITEM MARKETPLACE NETWORKNovember 2020August 2023Abandon3410NoNo
17087094Wirelessly Powered Electronic Display ApparatusesNovember 2020April 2024Allow4120NoNo
17078927METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRADING VIRTUAL PET COMMODITYOctober 2020September 2024Abandon4720YesNo
16979160COMPUTE RESOURCE EFFICIENT PERFORMANCE PRODUCT PROVISIONINGSeptember 2020August 2023Abandon3510NoNo
16925881System and Method for Real-Time Garment RecommendationsJuly 2020November 2023Abandon4020NoNo
16919103SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INTEGRATING INTERMEDIARY AND END-USER ONLINE RETAIL EXPERIENCESJuly 2020April 2023Abandon3410NoNo
16893105EXCHANGE FOR FRACTIONAL INTERESTS AND USAGE RIGHTS IN A COLLECTION OF ASSETSJune 2020June 2024Abandon4830NoNo
16824498NETWORK-BASED SYSTEM FOR SHOWING CARS FOR SALE BY NON-DEALER VEHICLE OWNERSMarch 2020March 2023Allow3610YesNo
16642898COMPUTER SYSTEM FOR SUGGESTING WINE TO DRINK WITH FOOD AND METHOD AND PROGRAM TO BE EXECUTED IN SAID COMPUTER SYSTEMFebruary 2020February 2023Abandon3540YesYes
16795644APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR ELECTRONIC SOCIAL INTERACTIONFebruary 2020March 2023Abandon3701NoNo
16752761MACHINE LEARNING BASED INTELLIGENT PARTS CATALOGJanuary 2020June 2024Abandon5340NoNo
16773727TECHNIQUES AND ARCHITECTURES FOR RECOMMENDING PRODUCTS BASED ON WORK ORDERSJanuary 2020August 2022Allow3120YesNo
16733765DYNAMIC ORDER PRIORITIZATION ENABLEMENTJanuary 2020January 2023Allow3630YesNo
16729281SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RECOMMENDING TRANSPORTATION SERVICESDecember 2019October 2023Abandon4621NoNo
16706236Multi-Site Order Fulfillment with Single GestureDecember 2019August 2023Abandon4420NoNo
16657052SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGEMENT AND DELIVERY OF SHOPPABLE CONTENT DATAOctober 2019June 2022Allow3220NoNo
16653867SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON COLLABORATIVE AND/OR CONTENT-BASED NODAL INTERRELATIONSHIPSOctober 2019December 2022Allow3810YesNo
16579051SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ESTABLISHING MESSAGE ROUTING PATHS THROUGH A COMPUTER NETWORKSeptember 2019January 2023Allow4010YesNo
16569209USING PLAIN TEXT TO LIST AN ITEM ON A PUBLICATION SYSTEMSeptember 2019March 2022Allow3120YesNo
16550011METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PRODUCT SEARCHESAugust 2019October 2022Abandon3821YesNo
16538040DEEP COGNITIVE CONSTRAINED FILTERING FOR PRODUCT RECOMMENDATIONAugust 2019October 2022Allow3820YesNo
16531491SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR VERIFYING IDENTITY OF A USER ON AN EQUIPMENT ONLINE MARKETPLACE PLATFORMAugust 2019December 2022Allow4120NoNo
16446039SOCIAL SHOPPING EXPERIENCE UTILIZING INTERACTIVE MIRROR AND POLLING OF TARGET AUDIENCE MEMBERS IDENTIFIED BY A RELATIONSHIP WITH PRODUCT INFORMATION ABOUT AN ITEM BEING WORN BY A USERJune 2019October 2022Allow4030YesNo
16444074VIRTUALIZED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OFFERING VIRTUAL PRODUCTS OR SERVICESJune 2019May 2023Abandon4720NoNo
16364874ITEM AND ACTION DETERMINATIONMarch 2019February 2024Allow5840YesYes
16278711SYSTEM AND METHOD OF ORDERING AND AUTOMATED DELIVERY SYSTEMFebruary 2019December 2022Abandon4521NoNo
16274043DYNAMIC CHECKOUT PAGE OPTIMIZATION USING MACHINE-LEARNED MODELFebruary 2019July 2022Allow4120YesNo
16265323MESSAGE-LESS B2B TRANSACTION PROCESSINGFebruary 2019November 2022Allow4630YesNo
16201945SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR QUICK TRANSACTIONSNovember 2018June 2022Allow4330YesNo
16121176Method and System of Obtaining a Bid For ServicesSeptember 2018December 2022Abandon5121NoNo
16007056SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING MULTIPLE USER PROFILES FOR PERSONALIZED RECOMMENDATIONSJune 2018November 2023Abandon6051YesNo
16060824A SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ATTRIBUTING A PURCHASE TO A USER BY USER DEVICE LOCATIONJune 2018August 2022Allow5121YesNo
15339897User-Assisted Processing of Receipts and InvoicesOctober 2016December 2022Abandon6041YesNo
15223300METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ONLINE SHOPPING FOR SCHOOL SUPPLIES BASED ON GENERIC LISTS PROVIDED BY TEACHERS FOR SEARCHING AND SELECTION BY USERSJuly 2016August 2022Allow6061YesYes
14806297LOCALIZED SORT OF RANKED PRODUCT RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON PREDICTED USER INTENTJuly 2015January 2023Allow6070YesNo
14742103METHOD FOR COST EFFICIENT FULFILLMENTJune 2015July 2023Abandon6070YesYes
14411882LOTTERY SYNDICATE SYSTEMDecember 2014March 2019Abandon5170YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner LEVINE, ADAM L.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
2
Examiner Affirmed
2
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
17.6%
Lower than average

What This Means

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.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
5
Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(40.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
3
(60.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
67.3%
Higher than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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, 40.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.

Strategic Recommendations

Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.

Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Examiner LEVINE, ADAM L - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner LEVINE, ADAM L works in Art Unit 3684 and has examined 39 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 48.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 41 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner LEVINE, ADAM L's allowance rate of 48.7% places them in the 12% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by LEVINE, ADAM L receive 2.77 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 77% 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by LEVINE, ADAM L is 41 months. This places the examiner in the 22% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +46.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LEVINE, ADAM L. This interview benefit is in the 90% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 21.9% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 29% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 19.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 24% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

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 20% 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 21% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 33.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 20% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 39% 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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.
  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.