Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18939666 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND ONBOARD DIAGNOSTICS TO IDENTIFY USABLE SALVAGE AUTO PARTS AND TO OPTIMIZE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS DISTRIBUTION | November 2024 | January 2026 | Abandon | 15 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 18349914 | AUCTION SYSTEM AND METHOD | July 2023 | October 2025 | Abandon | 27 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 18126271 | Systems, Methods, and Media for Managing the Obtaining of Services | March 2023 | August 2025 | Abandon | 29 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18044537 | RIDER-ASSISTANCE SYSTEM AND METHOD, INTERFACE DEVICE, AND CONTROL METHOD AND CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE SAME | March 2023 | December 2025 | Abandon | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18179807 | GAMIFICATION OF DIGITAL GIFT GIVING | March 2023 | September 2025 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 18118618 | VISUAL CABLE BUILDER | March 2023 | November 2024 | Allow | 20 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18159116 | DIGITAL SWAG PLATFORM FOR DYNAMIC REDEMPTION | January 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 36 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18096841 | MODULAR MULTI-PARTY POINTS OF TRANSACTION FOR DIGITAL BUSINESS | January 2023 | September 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17989445 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OPTIMAL RESOURCE ALLOCATION THROUGH MULTI-STAGE PROCESS MANAGEMENT | November 2022 | February 2025 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17977712 | SELECTING ORDER CHECKOUT OPTIONS | October 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17802592 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING A PERSONALIZED ONLINE EXPERIENCE | August 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17876829 | PRODUCT EXPOSURE METRIC | July 2022 | December 2024 | Abandon | 28 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17795690 | FASHION PRODUCT RECOMMENDATION METHOD, APPARATUS, AND SYSTEM | July 2022 | February 2025 | Abandon | 30 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17873810 | Systems and Methods for Providing Responsive Interactive Checkout User Interfaces | July 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 33 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17758687 | ONLINE RIDE-HAILING INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, DEVICE AND COMPUTER STORAGE MEDIUM | July 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 34 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17751065 | PRODUCT INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, PRODUCT INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM | May 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 41 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17686199 | METHOD FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION OF PRODUCT BRANDS AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS THEREFOR | March 2022 | September 2025 | Abandon | 42 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17613666 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR CUSTOMIZATION OF COSMECEUTICALS | November 2021 | February 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17606475 | SYSTEM, METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PRESENTING INFORMATION | October 2021 | April 2025 | Abandon | 41 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17503790 | Computer Systems and Stored Programs for Certifying Partially Certified Contractors | October 2021 | June 2025 | Abandon | 44 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17479310 | IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEM, AND METHOD TO PREVENT DUPLICATE ORDER FOR SUPPLIES | September 2021 | March 2025 | Allow | 42 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17382357 | DYNAMIC RECEIPT METHOD IN AN AUTONOMOUS STORE | July 2021 | October 2023 | Abandon | 27 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17365516 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INTRODUCTION OF A TRANSACTION MECHANISM TO AN E-COMMERCE WEBSITE WITHOUT NECESSITATION OF MULTIPARTY SYSTEMS INTEGRATION | July 2021 | June 2025 | Allow | 48 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17358081 | SELECTING ITEMS FOR A RECEIVING USER TO INCLUDE IN AN ORDER FROM A LIST CREATED FROM A SENDING ENTITY AND TRANSMITTED TO THE RECEIVING USER | June 2021 | November 2025 | Abandon | 53 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17316910 | INTERACTIVE PRODUCT REVIEW INTERFACE | May 2021 | September 2024 | Allow | 41 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17316646 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TRUSTED CONTACT, BUSINESS SELECTION WITH AUTOMATED MENUING USING TRUSTED FRIENDS' AND FAMILY'S RECOMMENDATIONS | May 2021 | February 2026 | Allow | 58 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17281577 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM | March 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17196365 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INTRODUCTION OF A TRANSACTION MECHANISM TO AN E-COMMERCE WEBSITE WITHOUT NECESSITATION OF MULTIPARTY SYSTEMS INTEGRATION | March 2021 | June 2025 | Allow | 52 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17089607 | Automated Web Content Publishing | November 2020 | October 2021 | Abandon | 12 | 8 | 2 | Yes | No |
| 17068406 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING AN ENHANCED SHOPPING EXPERIENCE INCLUDING EXECUTABLE TRANSACTIONS AND CONTENT DELIVERY | October 2020 | October 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17060444 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING ADVERTISING, UPSELLING, CROSS-SELLING, AND PURCHASING OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES VIA USER RECEIVING DEVICES AND MOBILE DEVICES | October 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 55 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16836448 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR UTILIZING MACHINE LEARNING MODELS TO GENERATE CONTENT PACKAGE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS | March 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 56 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16573526 | AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION MARKETPLACE | September 2019 | August 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16520287 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PART SELECTION AND ORDER MANAGEMENT IN AN ENERGY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM | July 2019 | May 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | No | No |
| 16512663 | SYSTEM AND METHOD DETERMINING INDIVIDUAL STYLE PREFERENCE AND DELIVERING SAID STYLE PREFERENCES | July 2019 | October 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16405635 | INTEGRATION OF THIRD PARTY DELIVERY SERVICE INTERFACE INTO ONLINE RETAIL PLATFORM | May 2019 | September 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16256472 | System, Platform and Method for Personalized Shopping Using a Virtual Shopping Assistant | January 2019 | June 2024 | Allow | 60 | 10 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16163899 | GROUP SHOPPING RULES ENGINE | October 2018 | December 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15883618 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ONE-TAP MOBILE CHECK-IN | January 2018 | March 2025 | Allow | 60 | 12 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner SULLIVAN, THOMAS 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, 66.7% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
⚠ Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner SULLIVAN, THOMAS J works in Art Unit 3689 and has examined 22 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 31.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 53 months.
Examiner SULLIVAN, THOMAS J's allowance rate of 31.8% places them in the 5% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by SULLIVAN, THOMAS J receive 5.50 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 100% 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 SULLIVAN, THOMAS 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 +43.8% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SULLIVAN, THOMAS J. 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, 8.1% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 4% 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 3.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 5% 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.
When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 100.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 76% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.
This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 51% 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 shows above-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. The mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) provides an opportunity for reconsideration.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 74% 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'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.