Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17133027 | INVENTORY AFFORDABILITY AND POLICY DISTANCE CALCULATOR | December 2020 | January 2025 | Abandon | 49 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17047355 | SYSTEM AND METHOD REFUNDING FOREIGNERS' TAXES | October 2020 | May 2024 | Allow | 43 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16942653 | HEALTHCARE DATA CHIP DEVICE | July 2020 | October 2024 | Abandon | 51 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16914322 | Child Support Lending and Finance System | June 2020 | February 2025 | Abandon | 56 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13609781 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING DATA RELATED TO CHARGES APPLICABLE TO INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS | September 2012 | October 2012 | Allow | 1 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13297503 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISPLAYING A VIEW OF MARKET DEPTH ON A GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE | November 2011 | March 2012 | Allow | 4 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12701373 | NON-SCALAR-VALUED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS | February 2010 | September 2012 | Allow | 31 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 12197463 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CALCULATING A FORWARD PRICE FOR USING LINKS IN A NETWORK | August 2008 | January 2010 | Allow | 16 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12124694 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR ADMINISTERING INDEXED LIFE INSURANCE | May 2008 | June 2012 | Allow | 48 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 11934058 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING OPTIMAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY | November 2007 | October 2012 | Allow | 59 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11830606 | ALLOCATING GOODS TO BIDDERS IN COMBINATORIAL AUCTIONS | July 2007 | February 2012 | Allow | 55 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11689789 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISPLAYING A VIEW OF MARKET DEPTH ON A GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE | March 2007 | September 2011 | Allow | 53 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11517705 | GENERATING ADJUSTED BIDS OF ENTITIES ACCORDING TO A NEW EXTERNAL BID | September 2006 | July 2011 | Allow | 58 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 10945548 | Method for investing working capital | September 2004 | August 2013 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 10475619 | METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CALCULATING A FORWARD PRICE FOR USING LINKS IN A NETWORK | July 2004 | February 2009 | Allow | 60 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10714802 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SORTING CHECKS ACCORDING TO A PRIORITY ORDER ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACCOUNT NUMBER | November 2003 | August 2011 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner PRESTON, JOHN O.
With a 50.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. 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, 40.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting 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 is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner PRESTON, JOHN O works in Art Unit 3693 and has examined 16 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 81.2%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 53 months.
Examiner PRESTON, JOHN O's allowance rate of 81.2% places them in the 54% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.
On average, applications examined by PRESTON, JOHN O receive 2.81 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 78% 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 PRESTON, JOHN O is 53 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 -33.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by PRESTON, JOHN O. 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, 21.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 29% 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 50.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 77% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.
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 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 21% 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.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 18.8% 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.