Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17135551 | OVER-THE-EAR HEADPHONE DEVICE WITH A CIRCLE-OF-SIGHT (CoS) SIGNALING ELEMENT | December 2020 | February 2023 | Abandon | 26 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15041465 | END-TO-END EFFECTIVE CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT VIA ADVANCED ANALYTICS AND SENSOR-BASED PERSONAL ASSISTANT CAPABILITY (EECEASPA) | February 2016 | January 2019 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14633309 | LEVERAGING PUSH NOTIFICATION CAPABILITIES ON MOBILE DEVICE TO DYNAMICALLY UPGRADE INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE ENTITLEMENT | February 2015 | March 2018 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14633071 | CALCULATION OF A THIRD PARTY SOLICITATION FEE | February 2015 | September 2017 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14614385 | PRESENTING AN ADVERTISEMENT IN A VEHICLE | February 2015 | September 2018 | Allow | 44 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14185359 | END-TO-END EFFECTIVE CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT VIA ADVANCED ANALYTICS AND SENSOR-BASED PERSONAL ASSISTANT CAPABILITY (EECEASPA) | February 2014 | August 2016 | Allow | 30 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 14149224 | GENERATING TARGETED GROUP BASED OFFERS TO INCREASE SALES | January 2014 | July 2015 | Allow | 19 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13538286 | REDUCING ELECTRIC ENERGY CONSUMPTION BASED ON ENERGY USAGE PATTERN | June 2012 | February 2019 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13216135 | PERSONALIZED GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS | August 2011 | May 2018 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13175185 | DETERMINATION AND MONETIZATION OF FUTURE LOCATION | July 2011 | January 2018 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13155998 | System and Method for Inverted Promotions | June 2011 | October 2013 | Allow | 28 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12967181 | GENERATING TARGETED GROUP BASED OFFERS TO INCREASE SALES | December 2010 | November 2013 | Allow | 35 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12961427 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ELECTRONIC MARKETING | December 2010 | September 2013 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12907870 | UNIVERSAL COUPON REDEMPTION SYSTEM AND METHOD | October 2010 | May 2013 | Allow | 30 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12904778 | COMPUTER SELF-SUPPORT MANAGEMENT | October 2010 | June 2011 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12884313 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR RETAINING CUSTOMER LOYALTY | September 2010 | May 2013 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12849078 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADDING ADVERTISEMENTS TO A LOCATION-BASED ADVERTISING SYSTEM | August 2010 | March 2017 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12782051 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADVERTISING USING PUSHED VIDEO | May 2010 | March 2014 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12800211 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SOCIAL PRODUCT INFORMATION SHARING | May 2010 | April 2013 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12776931 | MOBILE COUPON ANALYSIS SYSTEMS AND METHODS | May 2010 | September 2013 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 12560907 | ADVERTISEMENT REVENUE MANAGEMENT | September 2009 | May 2013 | Allow | 44 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12353711 | TARGETED VEHICLE ADVERTISING AND ENTERAINMENT SYSTEM METHOD | January 2009 | May 2015 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11713332 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ELECTRONIC MARKETING | March 2007 | February 2013 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10458029 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INVERTED PROMOTIONS | June 2003 | March 2011 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10173395 | CM DATA MANAGEMENT APPARATUS/METHOD, PAY-PROGRAM RECEPTION TERMINAL/METHOD, PAY-PROGRAM TRANSMISSION/RECEPTION SYSTEM, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING COMPUTER PROGRAM TO REALIZE THESE METHODS | June 2002 | February 2013 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner HAMILTON, MATTHEW L.
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, 50.0% 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 HAMILTON, MATTHEW L works in Art Unit 3685 and has examined 25 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 96.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 37 months.
Examiner HAMILTON, MATTHEW L's allowance rate of 96.0% places them in the 85% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by HAMILTON, MATTHEW L receive 3.16 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 87% 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 HAMILTON, MATTHEW L is 37 months. This places the examiner in the 34% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 23.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 36% 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 33.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 52% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.
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, 50.0% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 46% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 4.0% of allowed cases (in the 84% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
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.