Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19046103 | DYNAMIC MULTI-STAGE QUALIFICATION ANALYSIS | February 2025 | October 2025 | Allow | 9 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17991515 | FUNDING OF PREPAID ACCESS ACCOUNT ASSOCIATED WITH GAMING ESTABLISHMENT ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | November 2022 | February 2026 | Abandon | 39 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 13039057 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SATISFYING A TRANSACTION AMOUNT FROM AN ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCE | March 2011 | July 2013 | Allow | 29 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12756358 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR INTEREST RATE PREDICTION | April 2010 | September 2011 | Allow | 17 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12731036 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FACILITATING THE HANDLING OF A DISPUTE USING DISPARATE ARCHITECTURE | March 2010 | August 2012 | Allow | 29 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12693298 | TRANSACTION SYSTEM FOR CHARITABLE FUND RAISING, WITH TAX BENEFIT | January 2010 | March 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 12453480 | AUTOMATED BID ASK SPREAD NEGOTIATIONS METHOD | May 2009 | February 2012 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11546042 | CONTRAINT SATISFACTION FOR SOLUTIONS TO AN AUCTION WINNER-DETERMINATION PROBLEM | October 2006 | July 2011 | Allow | 57 | 2 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 11428219 | HEALTHCARE SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RIGHT-TIME CLAIMS ADJUDICATION AND PAYMENT | June 2006 | March 2014 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11212408 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR INTEREST RATE PREDICTION | August 2005 | October 2010 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 11051049 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR EXERCISING STOCK OPTIONS | February 2005 | March 2009 | Abandon | 50 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner DONLON, RYAN D.
With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.
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 show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.
⚠ Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner DONLON, RYAN D works in Art Unit 3692 and has examined 9 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 77.8%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 50 months.
Examiner DONLON, RYAN D's allowance rate of 77.8% places them in the 45% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by DONLON, RYAN D receive 2.56 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 75% 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 DONLON, RYAN D is 50 months. This places the examiner in the 6% 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 DONLON, RYAN D. 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, 21.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 25% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.
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 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 51% percentile among all examiners. 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, 120.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 95% 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 11.1% of allowed cases (in the 94% 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 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.