Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18968711 | SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND DEVICES FOR AUTOMATING EMAIL TO ORDER USING GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) | December 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 6 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18402377 | GUARANTEED OFFER GENERATOR | January 2024 | March 2025 | Abandon | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18213895 | GIFT TRANSACTION SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CREATING A CUSTOM-MADE DIGITAL MALL OF GIFTS | June 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18044933 | Automated Retail Store and System | March 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 18172331 | ROSCA AUTOMATIC BID RENEWAL METHOD AND ITS SERVO DEVICE | February 2023 | July 2025 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18166785 | METHOD, APPARATUS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR SECURE FACILITATION OF PACKAGE TRANSFER | February 2023 | July 2025 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18064358 | Rendering of Object Data Based on Recognition and/or Location Matching | December 2022 | February 2025 | Abandon | 26 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18009599 | SYSTEM FOR MEDIATING PERSONAL DATA OF USER | December 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17928841 | SYSTEMS AND/OR METHODS FOR PRESENTING DYNAMIC CONTENT FOR SURVEILLED INDIVIDUALS | November 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17962880 | SHOPPING SERVICE MEDIATION SYSTEM | October 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17876676 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PROVIDING VEHICLE INFORMATION BASED ON A VEHICLE POWERTRAIN TYPE | July 2022 | September 2025 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17859812 | CONNECTED VEHICLE DATA USAGE FRAMEWORK | July 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17841393 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR BUYER AND SELLER CONNECTING, MATCHING, AND COMMUNICATION | June 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17308247 | ACQUIRING AND UTILIZING INDIVIDUAL STYLE PROFILES FOR ONLINE GIFT SHOPPING | May 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17133003 | DISPLAY DEVICE, MOBILE TERMINAL, CONTROL METHOD, STORAGE MEDIUM, AND GUIDE SYSTEM | December 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 51 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16648215 | METHOD FOR COMPUTER-ASSISTED DETERMINATION OF A COSMETIC PRODUCT | March 2020 | January 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16284342 | AUTOMATIC ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DATA ANALYSIS METHOD AND APPARATUS | February 2019 | December 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10761404 | REMOTE NEGOTIATION APPARATUS, REMOTE NEGOTIATION METHOD, AND PROGRAM | January 2004 | March 2006 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10293554 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR THE RENTAL OF FURNITURE AND HOUSEWARES | November 2002 | December 2005 | Allow | 37 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 10152835 | ELECTRONIC COMMERCE SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING COMMERCIAL INFORMATION IN ELECTRONIC COMMERCE SYSTEM | May 2002 | November 2005 | Allow | 42 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10088057 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR FACILITATING DELIVERY AND PICKUP OF GOODS | March 2002 | May 2005 | Allow | 38 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10094782 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR FACILITATING TRANSACTIONS | March 2002 | June 2008 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10094368 | GIFT SELECTION AND FULFILLMENT SYSTEM | March 2002 | June 2006 | Allow | 51 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 10087370 | METHOD AND A SYSTEM FOR COMPUTER SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION USING NETWORKED SOFTWARE DISPENSING VENDING MACHINES | February 2002 | May 2005 | Allow | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 09996348 | METHOD FOR ASSISTING A CUSTOMER IN BUILDING A BUILD-TO-ORDER MEDICAL DEVICE | November 2001 | December 2005 | Allow | 49 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 09952006 | QUERY SYSTEM FOR SERVICE AVAILABILITY ACCORDING TO CUSTOMIZED CRITERIA | September 2001 | December 2005 | Allow | 51 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 09932799 | PROSTHETIC DEVICE FOR CORRECTING DEFORMITY OF SPINE | August 2001 | May 2002 | Abandon | 9 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 09932485 | ACETABULAR BONE PLATE | August 2001 | May 2002 | Allow | 9 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 09898542 | SURGICAL REAMER | July 2001 | March 2002 | Allow | 9 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 09859639 | RETRACTION PLATE FOR SOFT-TISSUE PARTS | May 2001 | January 2004 | Allow | 32 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 09855997 | ORGAN RETRACTION TAPE POSITIONER | May 2001 | December 2002 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 09838452 | MEDICAL FASTENER CAP SYSTEM | April 2001 | May 2002 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 09815058 | MERCHANDISE CONTRACT BROKERAGE SYSTEM | March 2001 | May 2006 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 09809953 | Method, apparatus, and article of manufacture for generating secure recommendations from market-based financial instrument prices | March 2001 | April 2005 | Allow | 49 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 09779037 | SURGICAL RETRACTOR | February 2001 | November 2002 | Allow | 21 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 09779021 | SURGICAL INSTRUMENT HOLDER | February 2001 | March 2003 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 09770664 | EYELID RETRACTION DEVICE | January 2001 | August 2002 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 09771519 | METHOD, APPARATUS, AND ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE FOR EXECUTING A STATEMENT TO MANIPULATE DATA | January 2001 | June 2006 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SMITH, JEFFREY A.
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.
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 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 SMITH, JEFFREY A works in Art Unit 3688 and has examined 25 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 80.0%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 39 months.
Examiner SMITH, JEFFREY A's allowance rate of 80.0% places them in the 50% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by SMITH, JEFFREY A receive 2.04 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 53% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.
The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by SMITH, JEFFREY A is 39 months. This places the examiner in the 28% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +3.2% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SMITH, JEFFREY A. This interview benefit is in the 25% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 31.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 66% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 27.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 38% 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.
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 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 20% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 100.0% 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, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 93% 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 32.0% of allowed cases (in the 100% 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 10.0% of allowed cases (in the 89% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.
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.