Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18905659 | Roadside Assistance System and Method | October 2024 | March 2026 | Abandon | 17 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18262364 | PROCESSING DEVICE, PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROCESSING PROGRAM | July 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18304205 | AUTOMATICALLY GENERATING AND OPERATING AN ITEM TRANSFER MECHANISM THAT IS INTEGRATED INTO AN EXPERT'S ONLINE PRESENCE | April 2023 | December 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 18160645 | PERFORMING PREDICTIVE INFERENCES USING MULTIPLE PREDICTIVE MODELS | January 2023 | December 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 18155671 | IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS IN AN IMAGE AND RECOMMENDATION OF SIMILAR ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS | January 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17814504 | PERSONALIZED ITEM RECOMMENDATIONS USING A HYPER-CONVOLUTIONAL MODEL | July 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 43 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17661407 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR FACILITATING ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS | April 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 45 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17722755 | EMBEDDABLE RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM FOR CANNABIS STRAINS AND PRODUCTS | April 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 45 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17682600 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATED GENERATION OF SALES PROPOSALS | February 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17569271 | Qualitative commodity matching | January 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17564222 | METHOD AND DEVICE TO PROVIDE MULTI-SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE | December 2021 | January 2026 | Abandon | 48 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17462767 | SELECTING ITEMS FOR AN ONLINE CONCIERGE SYSTEM USER TO INCLUDE IN AN ORDER TO ACHIEVE ONE OR MORE NUTRITIONAL GOALS OF THE USER | August 2021 | January 2026 | Abandon | 53 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17147344 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING PERSONALIZED RECOMMENDATIONS | January 2021 | November 2025 | Abandon | 58 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17078823 | System for Facilitating Customer Interactions in Fitting Rooms | October 2020 | December 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 1 | No | No |
| 16100568 | COMPARATIVE RANKING SYSTEM | August 2018 | March 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14802773 | PRINTED MATERIAL WITH AN EMBEDDED ORDERING DEVICE | July 2015 | June 2019 | Allow | 47 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 14726219 | OFFLINE CREATION OF MARKETPLACE LISTINGS | May 2015 | September 2018 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 14699168 | ENHANCING SEARCH QUERIES USING USER IMPLICIT DATA | April 2015 | September 2018 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KANG, TIMOTHY J.
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, 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.
⚠ 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 KANG, TIMOTHY J works in Art Unit 3689 and has examined 8 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 37.5%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 53 months.
Examiner KANG, TIMOTHY J's allowance rate of 37.5% places them in the 6% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by KANG, TIMOTHY J receive 4.75 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 99% 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 KANG, TIMOTHY J is 53 months. This places the examiner in the 3% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -16.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KANG, TIMOTHY J. This interview benefit is in the 2% 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, 7.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 3% 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 25.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 34% 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 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, 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 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 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.