Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18658574 | BANK-DRIVEN MODEL FOR PREVENTING DOUBLE SPENDING OF DIGITAL CURRENCY TRANSFERRED BETWEEN MULTIPLE DLT NETWORKS USING A TRUSTED INTERMEDIARY | May 2024 | April 2025 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18603043 | RETAILER CARD INSTANT APPROVAL AND PROVISIONING | March 2024 | March 2025 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18591353 | CONNECTED CAR AS A PAYMENT DEVICE | February 2024 | June 2025 | Allow | 16 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18229924 | CONNECTED CAR AS A PAYMENT DEVICE | August 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 23 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18206107 | CREDIT LIMIT TRANSFER | June 2023 | June 2025 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18200954 | MERCHANT TERMINAL FOR RECEIVING PAYMENT FROM A VEHICLE | May 2023 | April 2025 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18320707 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES | May 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 22 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18198738 | MERCHANT TERMINAL FOR RECEIVING PAYMENT FROM A VEHICLE | May 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 25 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18198742 | CONNECTED VEHICLE FOR PROVIDING NAVIGATION DIRECTIONS TO MERCHANT TERMINALS THAT PROCESS VEHICLE PAYMENTS | May 2023 | June 2025 | Allow | 25 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18079736 | RETAILER CARD INSTANT APPROVAL AND PROVISIONING | December 2022 | February 2025 | Allow | 26 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17985697 | MULTI-TIER TOKENIZATION PLATFORM SYSTEM | November 2022 | March 2025 | Allow | 28 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18053999 | EPHEMERAL DYNAMICALLY LINKED MESH NETWORK | November 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 30 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17921776 | CHECKOUT-PAYMENT DEVICE AND CHECKOUT-PAYMENT SYSTEM | October 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 30 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17883085 | SOLUTION TO INCOME INEQUALITY AND WEALTH INEQUALITY | August 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17743273 | SYSTEM FOR IMPLEMENTING END-POINT AUTHENTICATION RESTRICTION FOR RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION DEVICE USE | May 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16926459 | TRANSACTION TYPE CATEGORIZATION FOR ENHANCED SERVICING OF PEER-TO-PEER TRANSACTIONS | July 2020 | March 2025 | Abandon | 57 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16520074 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DIGITAL CURRENCY GENERATION AND MANAGING | July 2019 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10212014 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SELECTING SECURITIES FOR INVESTMENT | August 2002 | October 2008 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner ROSEN, ELIZABETH H works in Art Unit 3693 and has examined 15 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 53.3%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 28 months.
Examiner ROSEN, ELIZABETH H's allowance rate of 53.3% places them in the 9% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by ROSEN, ELIZABETH H receive 2.60 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 88% 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 ROSEN, ELIZABETH H is 28 months. This places the examiner in the 54% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +72.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ROSEN, ELIZABETH H. This interview benefit is in the 99% 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, 29.2% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 45% 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 1% 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.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 6.7% of allowed cases (in the 92% 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 38% 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.