Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18643179 | SESSION IDENTIFICATION METRICS THROUGH BLOOM FILTERS | April 2024 | May 2025 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18587361 | METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND MEDIA FOR ENHANCING A BLIND URL ESCROW WITH REAL TIME BIDDING EXCHANGES | February 2024 | February 2025 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18214719 | PUBLISHER TOOL FOR CONTROLLING SPONSORED CONTENT QUALITY ACROSS MEDIATION PLATFORMS | June 2023 | October 2024 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18249234 | DEVELOPMENT OF A PERSONALISED PERIODONTITIS SCORE FOR PATIENT RISK STRATIFICATION AND TARGETED THERAPY | April 2023 | September 2025 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18134907 | Systems and Methods for Medical Instrument Management | April 2023 | May 2025 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18134135 | METHOD OF MEDIATING PURCHASE OF PET MEDICATION AND SERVER THEREFOR | April 2023 | May 2025 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18029948 | MACHINE-LEARNING MODEL FOR GENERATING HEMOPHILIA PERTINENT PREDICTIONS USING SENSOR DATA | April 2023 | August 2025 | Allow | 28 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18029347 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | March 2023 | April 2025 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18118962 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD | March 2023 | March 2025 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18180325 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DYNAMICALLY DETERMINING EVENT CONTENT ITEMS | March 2023 | July 2025 | Allow | 29 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17983293 | METHOD FOR PROCESSING MEDICAL IMAGES | November 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17932279 | CLOUD LIFE MONITORING SYSTEM | September 2022 | November 2024 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17881056 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR FACILITATING MANAGING OF MEDICAL RECORDS | August 2022 | August 2025 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17870131 | CHOOSING DESIRED PRICE FOR PRODUCT ON PROMOTIONAL WEB PAGE | July 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17838208 | Electronic Goal Attainment | June 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17779598 | DISEASE PREDICTION DEVICE, PREDICTION MODEL GENERATION DEVICE, AND DISEASE PREDICTION PROGRAM | May 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17752480 | DISTRIBUTED INCENTIVE MANAGEMENT | May 2022 | December 2024 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17664228 | APPARATUSES AND METHODS FOR MODELLING AND CONTROL OF ICE FORMATION DURING CRYOABLATION TREATMENTS | May 2022 | July 2024 | Allow | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17742492 | PERSONAL BIOMETRIC ASSESSMENT SYSTEM | May 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17776042 | IMAGE ACQUISITION VISUALS FOR AUGMENTED REALITY | May 2022 | November 2024 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17736145 | Correlating Health Conditions with Behaviors for Treatment Programs in Neurohumoral Behavioral Therapy | May 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17582882 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USING DEVICE DISCOVERY TO PROVIDE ADVERTISING SERVICES | January 2022 | July 2025 | Allow | 41 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17579243 | SYSTEM AND METHOD OF DEPLOYING NEURAL NETWORK BASED DIGITAL ADVERTISING | January 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17573809 | PREDICTING TEMPORAL IMPACT OF INTERVENTIONS BY DECONVOLVING HISTORICAL RESPONSE DATA | January 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17573770 | MOBILE RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEM, RECORDING MEDIUM, AND RADIOGRAPHY SCHEDULE GENERATION METHOD | January 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17571444 | Method Of Implementing a Decentralized User-Extensible System for Storing and Managing Unified Medical Files | January 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 48 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17624677 | APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING INDICATION OF PAIN | January 2022 | December 2024 | Abandon | 36 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17646494 | INTERACTIVE VOICE CAPABILITIES FOR PROSPECT DIGITAL ACQUISITION | December 2021 | November 2024 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17646113 | METHOD OF MANAGING DIGITAL CONTENT, DEVICE, AND READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM | December 2021 | October 2024 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17547637 | BUNDLE CLICKING SIMULATION TO VALIDATE A/B TESTING BANDIT STRATEGIES | December 2021 | April 2025 | Abandon | 40 | 2 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 17611410 | OPERATION PROFILE SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A COMPUTER-ASSISTED SURGICAL SYSTEM | November 2021 | January 2025 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17515904 | PART REPLACEMENT REGISTRATION TOOL | November 2021 | July 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17450339 | TEXT PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS | October 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17449329 | METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR AUTOMATICALLY SELECTING A NETWORK SOURCE FOR RETRIEVING CLINICAL INFORMATION | September 2021 | July 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17448507 | MACHINE LEARNING SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO DIAGNOSE RARE DISEASES | September 2021 | July 2024 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17474681 | DYNAMIC GEOFENCING-ENABLED PHYSIOLOGICAL RISK MONITORING SYSTEM IN PHYSICAL AND MIXED REALITY ENVIRONMENTS | September 2021 | December 2024 | Allow | 39 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17401066 | WEB APPLICATION FOR SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH MACHINE LEARNING | August 2021 | December 2024 | Allow | 40 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17310176 | BAYESIAN CAUSAL INFERENCE MODELS FOR HEALTHCARE TREATMENT USING REAL WORLD PATIENT DATA | July 2021 | June 2025 | Allow | 47 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17360557 | TRANSACTIONS USING A MOBILE DEVICE AND A CONTACTLESS CARD | June 2021 | May 2025 | Allow | 47 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17359620 | System for Optimizing Behavioral Changes of a User to Improve the User's Wellbeing | June 2021 | December 2024 | Abandon | 42 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17238782 | Systems and Methods for Managing Incentive Campaigns and Automatically Approving Requests for Incentives | April 2021 | July 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 6 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17283513 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RECOMMENDING ITEMS IN CONVERSATIONAL STREAMS | April 2021 | February 2025 | Abandon | 46 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17159937 | SCALABLE METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR BUILDING INTERACTIVE LOGIC | January 2021 | October 2023 | Abandon | 33 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17075541 | PREDICTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A MARKETING CAMPAIGN PRIOR TO DEPLOYMENT | October 2020 | August 2025 | Allow | 58 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 12570246 | ADVERTISEMENTS WITHIN TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENTS | September 2009 | April 2019 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER, KATHERINE.
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, 25.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable 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 shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER, KATHERINE works in Art Unit 3687 and has examined 18 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 50.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 44 months.
Examiner KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER, KATHERINE's allowance rate of 50.0% places them in the 12% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER, KATHERINE receive 3.33 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 92% 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 KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER, KATHERINE is 44 months. This places the examiner in the 15% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +45.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER, KATHERINE. 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.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 18.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 18% 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 6.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 7% 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 20% 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 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, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 100% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 40% 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 43% 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.