USPTO Examiner PRESTON ASHLEY DAWN - Art Unit 3688

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18442466METHOD, COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT, AND SYSTEM FOR TRAINING A MACHINE LEARNING MODEL TO GENERATE USER EMBEDDINGS AND RECIPE EMBEDDINGS IN A COMMON LATENT SPACE FOR RECOMMENDING ONE OR MORE RECIPES TO A USERFebruary 2024March 2025Allow1310YesNo
18392918APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR BUILDING A SHOPPING LIST WITH A SENSOR UNITDecember 2023January 2025Abandon1310NoNo
18389516SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING SHOPPING FACILITIES AVAILABLE FOR ORDER PICK UPNovember 2023June 2025Allow1920YesNo
18480076SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INTEGRATED RETAIL AND ECOMMERCE SHOPPING PLATFORMSOctober 2023November 2024Allow1410NoNo
18202192SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MULTI-TIERED QUERY FOR SPECIALTY PROPERTY RECOMMENDATIONSMay 2023January 2025Abandon2030NoNo
18322138Automobile Telephone Processing System For a VehicleMay 2023March 2025Abandon2140NoNo
17839644Methods and System for Initiating a Virtual Try-On Application Running on a Computer System and Providing Interactive Augmented Reality (AR) GraphicsJune 2022November 2024Allow2910YesNo
17695643METHOD, SYSTEM, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM FOR FRICTIONLESS SHOPPING USING EMITTED LIGHT SIGNALSMarch 2022April 2025Allow3730YesNo
17588099REDUCING SAMPLE SELECTION BIAS IN A MACHINE LEARNING-BASED RECOMMENDER METHOD, SYSTEM, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUMJanuary 2022December 2024Allow3420YesNo
17550950NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM, AND METHOD FOR CONTEXT-BASED CONTENT-SCORING FOR AN ONLINE CONCIERGE SYSTEMDecember 2021February 2025Allow3820YesNo
17543396SYSTEMS AND METHOD FOR GENERATING RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON LOCATION-BASED, ITEM SIMILARITIESDecember 2021December 2024Allow3630YesNo
17531399METHOD AND SYSTEMS FOR RECOMMENDING PRODUCT BUNDLESNovember 2021September 2024Allow3420YesNo
17530183METHOD, SYSTEM, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM FOR A BROWSER EXTENSION FOR PRODUCT QUALITYNovember 2021April 2025Allow4040YesNo
17607268COMMUNICATIONS SERVER APPARATUS, METHODS AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS FOR RECOMMENDING ONE OR MORE POINTS-OF-INTEREST FOR A TRANSPORT-RELATED SERVICE TO A USEROctober 2021October 2024Abandon3621YesNo
17452732SYNCHRONIZING ITEM RECOMMENDATIONS ACROSS APPLICATIONS USING MACHINE LEARNINGOctober 2021April 2025Abandon4240YesNo
17500540FEATURE SENSOR EFFICIENCY OPTIMIZATION FOR RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM USING DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSISOctober 2021May 2025Abandon4340NoNo
17488011METHOD, DEVICE, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM FOR PROVIDING AUGMENTED REALITY-BASED MAKEUP PRODUCT SETS IN A MESSAGING SYSTEMSeptember 2021January 2025Allow3940NoNo
17483469SYSTEM, METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM FOR GENERATING RECOMMENDATIONSSeptember 2021October 2024Allow3640YesNo
17474251Method and System For A Vendor Website GUI For Marketing Greeting Cards And EnvelopesSeptember 2021June 2024Allow3320YesNo
17471649COMMODITY RECOMMENDATION METHOD, SERVER, SHOPPING CART AND SHOPPING SYSTEMSeptember 2021June 2024Allow3310NoNo
17336121ESSENTIAL ACCESSORY RECOMMENDATIONSJune 2021June 2025Abandon4850YesNo
17302960PROVIDING ENTITY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ITEMSMay 2021February 2025Abandon4540YesNo
17163510SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATICALLY GENERATING SIMILAR ITEMS USING SPECTRAL FILTERINGJanuary 2021July 2024Allow4140YesNo
17163380SYSTEM, METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM, FOR DIVERSIFYING COMPLEMENTARY ITEM RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON USER PREFERENCESJanuary 2021December 2024Allow4650YesNo
17163378SYSTEM, METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM FOR GENERATING RECOMMENDATIONSJanuary 2021September 2024Allow4380YesNo
17163216SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING A PERSONALIZED ITEM RECOMMENDATION STRATEGY FOR AN ANCHOR ITEMJanuary 2021April 2025Abandon5140YesNo
16993468MANAGEMENT SERVER FOR AUTOMATIC ORDERING OF CONSUMABLE ITEMSAugust 2020September 2024Allow4921YesNo
16987031RETAIL STORE THAT ALSO SELLS INTERNET ITEMSAugust 2020November 2022Abandon2740NoYes
16806447Automated Product Localization Through Mobile Data AnalysisMarch 2020September 2024Allow5440YesNo
16693136METHOD, NON-TRANSITORY MACHINE-READABLE MEDIUM, AND SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING COMPARABLE ENTITIES USING MACHINE LEARNING AND PROFILE GRAPHSNovember 2019December 2024Allow6060YesNo
16586001METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING RECOMMENDATION INFORMATION FOR ITEMSeptember 2019November 2024Abandon6040YesYes
16329355A METHOD, PLATFORM, AND DEVICE FOR PERSONALIZED SHOPPINGFebruary 2019June 2024Allow6080YesNo
15368529Systems and Methods for Baselining using Multiple Baseline MethodologiesDecember 2016August 2019Allow3310YesNo
15164832Planogram and Realogram AlignmentMay 2016May 2019Allow3610YesNo
15164825Method, System, and Computer Program Product for Planogram GenerationMay 2016December 2019Allow4220YesNo
15079731SYSTEM, METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT PROVIDING EYE TRACKING BASED COGNITIVE FILTERING AND PRODUCT RECOMMENDATIONSMarch 2016March 2020Allow4830YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner PRESTON, ASHLEY DAWN.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
1
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
17.0%
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
2
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
8.1%
Lower 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, 0.0% 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.

Strategic Recommendations

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 PRESTON, ASHLEY DAWN - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner PRESTON, ASHLEY DAWN works in Art Unit 3688 and has examined 35 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 68.6%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 38 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner PRESTON, ASHLEY DAWN's allowance rate of 68.6% places them in the 23% 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 PRESTON, ASHLEY DAWN receive 3.26 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 98% 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 PRESTON, ASHLEY DAWN is 38 months. This places the examiner in the 12% 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 +40.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by PRESTON, ASHLEY DAWN. This interview benefit is in the 89% 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, 17.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 9% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 25.9% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 27% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 0.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 1% 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, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 62% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 36% 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 37% 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 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.