Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19233833 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ORDER FULFILLMENT | June 2025 | February 2026 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 19183602 | SHELF DEVICE WITH A MOVABLE CAMERA FOR PRODUCT CAPTURE, UNMANNED SALES SYSTEM, AND SALES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR UNMANNED STORES | April 2025 | October 2025 | Allow | 6 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 19011584 | 3D BUILDING MODEL MATERIALS AUTO-POPULATOR | January 2025 | November 2025 | Allow | 10 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18412273 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR COUPLING A USER COMPUTING DEVICE AND A POINT OF SALE DEVICE | January 2024 | March 2025 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18541215 | METHODS FOR HOSTING LOCAL TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN SENDERS AND RECIPIENTS | December 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 25 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18510094 | RENDERING 3D MODEL DATA FOR PRIORITIZED PLACEMENT OF 3D MODELS IN A 3D VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT | November 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18491982 | SEARCH RESULT PAGE TRANSMISSION DEVICE, SEARCH RESULT PAGE TRANSMISSION METHOD, AND SEARCH RESULT PAGE TRANSMISSION PROGRAM | October 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 27 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18378477 | APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR RECOMMENDING CUSTOMIZED COSMETICS BASED ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE | October 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18239253 | Adaptive Timing Prediction For Updating Information | August 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 31 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18120403 | GENERATING AND DETERMINING ADDITIONAL CONTENT AND PRODUCTS BASED ON PRODUCT-TOKENS | March 2023 | March 2026 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18176983 | ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION AND ITEM RECOMMENDATION | March 2023 | October 2025 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18113870 | GENERATING A SUGGESTED SHOPPING LIST BY POPULATING A TEMPLATE SHOPPING LIST OF ITEM CATEGORIES WITH ITEM TYPES AND QUANTITIES BASED ON A SET OF COLLECTION RULES | February 2023 | September 2025 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18113879 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PARTICIPATION IN A VEHICLE MARKETPLACE | February 2023 | February 2026 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18165911 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING CUSTOMIZED RECOMMENDATIONS VIA DATA ANALYSIS | February 2023 | December 2025 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17916156 | REAL-TIME AUCTION SYSTEM AND METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM THEREFOR | September 2022 | August 2025 | Allow | 35 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17871285 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A REAL-TIME EGOCENTRIC COLLABORATIVE FILTER ON LARGE DATASETS | July 2022 | October 2025 | Allow | 39 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17731796 | MOBILE-ASSISTED PICKER TECHNIQUES FOR IN-STORE NAVIGATION | April 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 45 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17653402 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR WIRELESS PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS | March 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 46 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 17621800 | METHOD FOR DETERMINING A SPECIFIC VALUE OF AN INPUT DATA FROM A SET OF PHYSICAL ELEMENTS | December 2021 | November 2025 | Allow | 46 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17380966 | MAPPING SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SHOPPING GUIDANCE | July 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 51 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17366451 | METHODS AND A SYSTEM FOR IN-STORE NAVIGATION | July 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 51 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 16656997 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR LOCATING FACILITIES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE | October 2019 | January 2026 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14139749 | DISCOVERY ENGINE STOREFRONT | December 2013 | December 2016 | Allow | 36 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KRINGEN, MICHELLE THERESE.
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 KRINGEN, MICHELLE THERESE works in Art Unit 3689 and has examined 5 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 51 months.
Examiner KRINGEN, MICHELLE THERESE'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 KRINGEN, MICHELLE THERESE receive 3.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 87% 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 KRINGEN, MICHELLE THERESE is 51 months. This places the examiner in the 5% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -25.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KRINGEN, MICHELLE THERESE. This interview benefit is in the 1% 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, 40.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 91% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.
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 3% 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 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, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 7% 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 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.