USPTO Examiner BRIDGES CHRISTOPHER - Art Unit 3693

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18948429PROXIMITY-BASED DEVICE IDENTIFICATION FOR PAYMENTSNovember 2024March 2025Allow410YesNo
18646511PROCESS AND SYSTEM FOR THE MANAGEMENT, STORAGE AND AUTOMATION OF HEALTH CARE INFORMATION AND APPLICATION PROGRAM INTERFACE THEREFORApril 2024July 2024Allow300YesNo
18627906SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SYNCHRONIZING AND PROTECTING DATAApril 2024January 2025Allow911YesNo
18616805MARKET OPERATION THROUGH REGULATION OF INCOMING ORDER MATCH ALLOCATION AND/OR DYNAMIC RESTING ORDER MATCH ALLOCATION PRIORITIESMarch 2024May 2025Allow1310NoNo
18585813HIERARCHY-BASED DISTRIBUTED LEDGERFebruary 2024November 2024Allow910NoNo
18396556SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING A BLUETOOTH LOW ENERGY MOBILE PAYMENT SYSTEMDecember 2023January 2025Allow1310NoNo
18542916MARKET OPERATION THROUGH REGULATION OF INCOMING ORDER MATCH ALLOCATION AND/OR DYNAMIC RESTING ORDER MATCH ALLOCATION PRIORITIESDecember 2023May 2025Allow1610NoNo
18532122SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COORDINATING PROCESSING OF SCHEDULED INSTRUCTIONS ACROSS MULTIPLE COMPONENTSDecember 2023November 2024Allow1110NoNo
18527789FRAUD DETECTION BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF MESSAGES IN A MESSAGING ACCOUNTDecember 2023May 2025Allow1810YesNo
18461501Data Processing Apparatus with a Logic Processing Device for Processing Network Data Records Transmitted from a Plurality of Remote, Distributed Terminal DevicesSeptember 2023November 2024Abandon1520NoNo
18217926SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RECORDING ASSETS AND TRANSACTIONS THEREOF IN BLOCKCHAINSJuly 2023October 2024Abandon1510NoNo
18314541SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TOKEN-BASED CROSS-CURRENCY INTEROPERABILITYMay 2023July 2024Allow1410NoNo
18143737PAYMENT VEHICLE WITH ON AND OFF FUNCTIONMay 2023July 2024Allow1410YesNo
18305426SECURE SYSTEMApril 2023August 2024Allow1610YesNo
18301910BIDDABLE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, ONLINE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PLATFORM FOR TRADING THEREOF AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEM AND METHOD OF TRADING THEREOFApril 2023December 2024Abandon2010NoNo
18128427APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR IMPLEMENTING CHANGED MONITORING CONDITIONS AND/OR REQUIREMENTS USING DYNAMICALLY-MODIFIABLE CONTROL LOGICMarch 2023July 2024Allow1510NoNo
18026901System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Verifying a Payment Device Using a MagnetometerMarch 2023June 2025Allow2710YesNo
18181373CUSTOMER CONTACT CHANNEL OPTIMIZATIONMarch 2023April 2025Abandon2510YesNo
18180805SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATICALLY VALIDATING USERS TO ACCESS BLOCKCHAIN BASED APPLICATIONSMarch 2023March 2025Abandon2401NoNo
18177893System and Method for Providing Real Time Financial Account Information Using Event Driven ArchitectureMarch 2023December 2024Allow2110NoNo
18177420TOUCHLESS PAYMENTS AT POINT-OF-SALE TERMINALSMarch 2023January 2025Allow2220NoNo
18154772FAMILY ACCOUNTS FOR AN ONLINE CONTENT STORAGE SHARING SERVICEJanuary 2023July 2024Allow1910YesNo
18005066ELECTRONIC IMPACT PLATFORM FOR SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENT IN SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE ENDEAVORSJanuary 2023May 2025Abandon2820YesNo
18081553SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EMBEDDING INTERACTIVE EXPERIENCES ONTO PAYMENT CARDSDecember 2022February 2025Abandon2610NoNo
17905773PAYMENT REMITTANCE SUPPORT SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, PAYMENT REMITTANCE SUPPORT METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUMSeptember 2022May 2025Abandon3220YesNo
17797028Method and System for Planning and Monitoring the Progress of Construction ProjectsAugust 2022April 2025Abandon3320NoNo
17828653SECURE MATCHMAKING, ASSET TRANSFER, AND USABILITY RECONFIGURATION PLATFORMMay 2022January 2025Allow3220YesNo
17826499METHOD AND SYSTEM TO DETERMINE PAIRING MEMBERS IN A PEER TO PEER HEALTHCARE PAYMENT PLATFORMMay 2022December 2024Abandon3120NoNo
17768691Transaction Method, Apparatus, Device, and SystemApril 2022April 2025Abandon3620NoNo
17710555PROXIMITY-BASED PAYMENTSMarch 2022March 2024Allow2320YesNo
17706798SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING AND INSURING A PUBLIC SERVICEMarch 2022October 2024Abandon3121YesNo
17753570Cloud Computing Metering and Charging Method and Apparatus, and Electronic Device and Storage MediumMarch 2022December 2024Abandon3420NoNo
17633180METHOD, DEVICE, AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING VEHICLE SHARING SERVICEFebruary 2022October 2024Abandon3220YesNo
17399178PROCESS AND SYSTEM FOR THE MANAGEMENT, STORAGE AND AUTOMATION OF HEALTH CARE INFORMATION AND APPLICATION PROGRAM INTERFACE THEREFORAugust 2021October 2024Abandon3820NoYes
17392307SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING SOCIAL STATEMENTSAugust 2021April 2025Abandon4450YesNo
17159457SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PAYMENT TOKEN PROVISIONING WITH VARIABLE RISK EVALUATIONJanuary 2021February 2025Allow4951YesNo
16784355CUSTOMIZABLE DATA TRANSACTION SYSTEMSFebruary 2020November 2024Allow5740YesYes
15299237USER INTERFACE FOR LATENT RISK ASSESSMENTOctober 2016May 2025Abandon6090YesYes
14105006SECURE PASSCODE ENTRY DOCKING STATIONDecember 2013November 2017Allow4721YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BRIDGES, CHRISTOPHER.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
3
Examiner Affirmed
2
(66.7%)
Examiner Reversed
1
(33.3%)
Reversal Percentile
54.0%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 33.3% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is above the USPTO average, indicating that appeals have better success here than typical.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
4
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(25.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
3
(75.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
32.9%
Lower than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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.

Strategic Recommendations

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 BRIDGES, CHRISTOPHER - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner BRIDGES, CHRISTOPHER works in Art Unit 3693 and has examined 34 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 50.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 26 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner BRIDGES, CHRISTOPHER's allowance rate of 50.0% places them in the 7% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by BRIDGES, CHRISTOPHER receive 1.94 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 62% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by BRIDGES, CHRISTOPHER is 26 months. This places the examiner in the 64% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +17.6% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BRIDGES, CHRISTOPHER. This interview benefit is in the 63% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 19.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 12% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 22.2% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 21% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

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 18% 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 25.0% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 80.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 92% 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 Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 37% 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 37% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may come directly without a separate action for formal matters.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.