Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17129306 | ELECTRONIC WALLET APPARATUS | December 2020 | February 2025 | Abandon | 50 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17129276 | BOOKMAKER MANAGEMENT APPARATUS | December 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16893804 | VIRTUAL CURRENCY SYSTEM | June 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 58 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16847769 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ADDITIONAL RENEWABLE CAPACITY CREDITS | April 2020 | May 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16800628 | REMITTANCE PROCESS METHOD | February 2020 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16800700 | DEPOSIT AMOUNT MANAGING METHOD | February 2020 | April 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16800717 | DEPOSIT AMOUNT MANAGING METHOD | February 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16800680 | DEPOSIT AMOUNT MANAGING METHOD | February 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16800729 | PAYMENT MANAGING METHOD | February 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 16405350 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REDUCING FALSE POSITIVES IN ITEM DETECTION | May 2019 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16295054 | Method and System for Low Latency Basket Calculation | March 2019 | October 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 15260707 | MESSAGE CANCELATION BASED ON DATA TRANSACTION PROCESSING SYSTEM LATENCY | September 2016 | December 2024 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 13896450 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATICALLY HARMONIZING ACCESS TO A SOFTWARE APPLICATION PROGRAM VIA DIFFERENT ACCESS DEVICES | May 2013 | June 2014 | Allow | 13 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13722692 | Speed Adjustable and Reversible Tool for Slicer Orders | December 2012 | June 2017 | Allow | 54 | 5 | 1 | No | No |
| 13599229 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATICALLY HARMONIZING ACCESS TO A SOFTWARE APPLICATION PROGRAM VIA DIFFERENT ACCESS DEVICES | August 2012 | June 2014 | Allow | 21 | 6 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 13506407 | Flexible-rate, financial option and method of trading | April 2012 | November 2015 | Abandon | 43 | 19 | 0 | No | No |
| 13374499 | Method and system for energy recapture | December 2011 | March 2015 | Allow | 38 | 4 | 1 | No | No |
| 13080803 | SECURITIES MESSAGES WITH AUTOMATED ENCODING OF FIELD OPERATORS | April 2011 | March 2019 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12927597 | CENTRAL COUNTERPARTY FOR DATA MANAGEMENT | November 2010 | September 2011 | Allow | 9 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12255518 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EVALUATING THE INTEGRITY OF A MODEL PORTFOLIO OF A FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT | October 2008 | January 2012 | Allow | 38 | 2 | 2 | No | No |
| 12169954 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS RELATED TO DELIVERING TARGETED ADVERTISING TO CONSUMERS | July 2008 | June 2014 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 2 | No | Yes |
| 12060831 | REMOTE CONTROL DEVICE TO DISPLAY ADVERTISEMENTS | April 2008 | February 2016 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 1 | No | No |
| 11691618 | SYSTEM AND SOFTWARE FOR PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO OPTIMIZE A PORTFOLIO OF ITEMS | March 2007 | August 2010 | Allow | 40 | 2 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10989181 | APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING FIXED MEMORY ADDRESS ERRORS IN SOURCE CODE AT BUILD TIME | November 2004 | September 2008 | Allow | 46 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10753069 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRADING ACTIVELY MANAGED FUNDS | January 2004 | December 2011 | Allow | 60 | 6 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10431316 | Methods and systems for providing life insurance | May 2003 | June 2014 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10092005 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING LIQUIDITY | March 2002 | September 2011 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner POLLOCK, GREGORY 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, 21.1% 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 POLLOCK, GREGORY A works in Art Unit 3691 and has examined 27 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 51.9%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 10000 months.
Examiner POLLOCK, GREGORY A's allowance rate of 51.9% places them in the 15% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by POLLOCK, GREGORY A receive 5.11 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 POLLOCK, GREGORY A is 10000 months. This places the examiner in the 1% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -3.8% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by POLLOCK, GREGORY A. This interview benefit is in the 7% 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, 5.8% 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 36% 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 38.9% of appeals filed. This is in the 7% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 71.4% 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, 50.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 46% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show below-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 18.5% of allowed cases (in the 98% 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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 46% 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.