Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16712856 | VERIFIED PURCHASING | December 2019 | December 2022 | Abandon | 36 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16683421 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OPTIMIZED RETAIL MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODE PROCESSING | November 2019 | November 2022 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16580441 | BLOCKCHAIN TOKENIZATION | September 2019 | September 2022 | Abandon | 36 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 16427322 | METHODS FOR PERFORMING INTERNET PROCESSES USING GLOBAL POSITIONING AND OTHER MEANS | May 2019 | August 2021 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16420171 | PHYSICAL CURRENCY FOR ENABLING IN-PERSON COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS USING BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY | May 2019 | September 2021 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16417699 | SECURE MULTIPLE CRYPTOCURRENCY WALLET AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF | May 2019 | October 2021 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16397319 | Decentralized Crypto Token Swap Platform on Mobile Device Apps | April 2019 | July 2021 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16362558 | Systems and Methods for Offline Stored Value Payment Management, Offline Mutual Authentication for Payment, and Auditing Offline Transactions | March 2019 | September 2021 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16362554 | Systems and Methods for Offline Stored Value Payment Management, Offline Mutual Authentication for Payment, and Auditing Offline Transactions | March 2019 | August 2021 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16298915 | SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAMS FOR USING A BLOCKCHAIN MARKETPLACE | March 2019 | January 2022 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16259757 | System for Processing Insurance Transactions | January 2019 | August 2021 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 16254706 | TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE AUDIBLE TRANSACTIONAL SECURITY AUTHENTICATION | January 2019 | December 2021 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16200077 | SYSTEM FOR ANOMALY DETECTION AND REMEDIATION BASED ON DYNAMIC DIRECTED GRAPH NETWORK FLOW ANALYSIS | November 2018 | September 2022 | Abandon | 46 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16080483 | REMITTANCE PROCESSING METHOD AND SYSTEM, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | August 2018 | January 2022 | Abandon | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16038680 | SCALABLE RECONCILIATION OF CRYPTO ASSETS IN A BLOCKCHAIN NETWORK | July 2018 | February 2021 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15981312 | SECURE ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION AUTHENTICATION | May 2018 | June 2021 | Abandon | 37 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15911559 | AUTOMATED FRAUD RISK ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS | March 2018 | June 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15875849 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PRIVATE NODE-LEVEL DATA COMPUTING AND RECONCILIATION | January 2018 | January 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 15875813 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PRIVATE NODE-LEVEL DATA COMPUTING AND RECONCILIATION | January 2018 | July 2021 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15789619 | OFFLINE MODE FOR ACCEPTING E-COMMERCE AND CARD-PRESENT PAYMENTS | October 2017 | November 2021 | Abandon | 48 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15557023 | DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD FOR MOBILE NEAR FIELD PAYMENT AND USER EQUIPMENT | September 2017 | August 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15672116 | Mobile Account Authentication Service | August 2017 | July 2021 | Abandon | 47 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15661693 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IN-STORE WIRELESS MOBILE PAYMENT | July 2017 | May 2021 | Abandon | 45 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15421198 | Systems and Methods for Obtaining Authorization to Release Personal Information Associated with a User | January 2017 | November 2020 | Abandon | 46 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15388719 | DIGITAL ASSET INTERMEDIARY ELECTRONIC SETTLEMENT PLATFORM | December 2016 | June 2021 | Abandon | 54 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 15198136 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRADING, CLEARING AND SETTLING SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS USING BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY | June 2016 | November 2020 | Abandon | 53 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 15090224 | DIGITAL ASSET INTERMEDIARY ELECTRONIC SETTLEMENT PLATFORM | April 2016 | September 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 15076092 | LICENSE MANAGEMENT APPARATUS, LICENSE MANAGEMENT METHOD, AND LICENSE AUTHENTICATION PROGRAM | March 2016 | October 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 14987100 | DIGITAL WALLET FRAUD GUARD | January 2016 | August 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14983888 | Method and Apparatus for Digital Rights Management | December 2015 | May 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14870790 | MERCHANT TOKENIZATION MIGRATION INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEM | September 2015 | June 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 14689894 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF DIRECT ACCOUNT TRANSFER | April 2015 | August 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14527763 | CONFIRMING PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF PLASTIC NFC CARDS WITH A MOBILE DIGITAL WALLET APPLICATION | October 2014 | February 2023 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 1 | No | Yes |
| 14461536 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR LOCALIZED MANAGEMENT OF FEATURE LICENSES | August 2014 | September 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13688817 | Method for Certifying and Verifying Digital Web Content Using Public Cryptography | November 2012 | August 2021 | Abandon | 60 | 12 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 13618474 | SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR PRIORITIZING INFORMATION | September 2012 | September 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 11 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 11966893 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DYNAMICALLY ALLOCATING MONETIZATION RIGHTS AND ACCESS AND OPTIMIZING THE VALUE OF DIGITAL CONTENT | December 2007 | August 2022 | Abandon | 60 | 11 | 2 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner MCATEE, PATRICK.
With a 16.7% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is below the USPTO average, indicating that appeals face more challenges here than typical.
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, 8.3% 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 MCATEE, PATRICK works in Art Unit 3685 and has examined 37 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 0.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 46 months.
Examiner MCATEE, PATRICK's allowance rate of 0.0% places them in the 1% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by MCATEE, PATRICK receive 4.03 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 96% 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 MCATEE, PATRICK is 46 months. This places the examiner in the 13% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by MCATEE, PATRICK. This interview benefit is in the 18% 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, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 1% 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, 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.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 2% 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, 28.6% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 15% 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.
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.