Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17124095 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO GAME LIVE STREAMING | December 2020 | April 2024 | Abandon | 40 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17068160 | DYNAMIC BIDDING DETERMINATION USING MACHINE-LEARNING MODELS | October 2020 | August 2024 | Abandon | 46 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16678494 | HOVERING PROMOTIONAL ADVERTISEMENT APPARATUSES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF | November 2019 | June 2024 | Abandon | 55 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16120178 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INTELLIGENT PROMOTION DESIGN IN BRICK AND MORTAR RETAILERS WITH PROMOTION SCORING | August 2018 | September 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 12 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 15794991 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETECTING FRAUDULENT ADVERTISEMENT ACTIVITY | October 2017 | April 2024 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15465183 | AUTOMATED CAMPAIGN CONFIGURATION SWITCHING FRAMEWORK | March 2017 | November 2023 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 14523521 | METHOD AND SYSTEM OF ACCRETIVE VALUE STORE LOYALTY CARD PROGRAM | October 2014 | December 2023 | Allow | 60 | 16 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ANDREI, RADU.
With a 50.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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, 33.3% 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.
✓ Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner ANDREI, RADU works in Art Unit 3685 and has examined 7 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 42.9%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 10000 months.
Examiner ANDREI, RADU's allowance rate of 42.9% places them in the 9% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by ANDREI, RADU receive 7.71 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 100% 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 ANDREI, RADU is 10000 months. This places the examiner in the 1% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -66.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ANDREI, RADU. This interview benefit is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. Note: Interviews show limited statistical benefit with this examiner compared to others, though they may still be valuable for clarifying issues.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 7.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 4% 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.
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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 7% 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'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.
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.