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 |
| 18652246 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IMPROVING ACCURACY OF RESIDENTIAL HOME VALUATIONS | May 2024 | March 2026 | Abandon | 22 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18603043 | RETAILER CARD INSTANT APPROVAL AND PROVISIONING | March 2024 | March 2025 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18595767 | Active Meta Data Based Transaction Amalgamation Offset in Blocks to Increase Carbon Efficiency | March 2024 | October 2025 | Allow | 19 | 1 | 0 | No | 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 |
| 18038684 | DETECTION OF IDENTIFIERS ON RETURNABLE GOODS AND FOR RETURN DEVICE IN ORDER TO REDEEM A DEPOSIT CREDIT | May 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 32 | 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 |
| 18161955 | PREDICTIVE RESPONSE FROM CONVERSATIONAL FLOW | January 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18153784 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FAMILY ADVISOR SAFETY NET | January 2023 | September 2025 | Abandon | 33 | 2 | 0 | No | 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 |
| 17823278 | NON-FUNGIBLE TOKEN TRANSACTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND METHODS | August 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17883085 | SOLUTION TO INCOME INEQUALITY AND WEALTH INEQUALITY | August 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 31 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17838615 | PAYMENT SETTLEMENT VIA CRYPTOCURRENCY EXCHANGE FOR FIAT CURRENCY | June 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 44 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17743273 | SYSTEM FOR IMPLEMENTING END-POINT AUTHENTICATION RESTRICTION FOR RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION DEVICE USE | May 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17734668 | Blockchain Fungible and Non-Fungible Tokenization of Physical Assets via Digital Twinning | May 2022 | November 2025 | Abandon | 42 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17651517 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING PAYMENT CARD PROVISIONING AVAILABILITY IN MOBILE APPLICATIONS | February 2022 | January 2026 | Abandon | 47 | 4 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17519733 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING A FUEL DISPENSING ACCOUNT | November 2021 | July 2025 | Allow | 44 | 1 | 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 |
| 16571641 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONFIGURING TRANSFERS | September 2019 | December 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16520074 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DIGITAL CURRENCY GENERATION AND MANAGING | July 2019 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15999073 | Modeling method and device for machine learning model | August 2018 | July 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15853067 | AUTOMATED PROCESS FOR VALIDATING AN AUTOMATED BILLING UPDATE (ABU) CYCLE TO PREVENT FRAUD | December 2017 | July 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13308312 | DETERMINATION OF INTERCHANGE CATEGORIES | November 2011 | August 2012 | Allow | 9 | 0 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10212014 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SELECTING SECURITIES FOR INVESTMENT | August 2002 | October 2008 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner ROSEN, ELIZABETH H.
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, 0.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is less effective here than in most other areas.
⚠ 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 ROSEN, ELIZABETH H works in Art Unit 3693 and has examined 8 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 37.5%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 10000 months.
Examiner ROSEN, ELIZABETH H's allowance rate of 37.5% places them in the 6% 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 4.38 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 98% 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 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.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 3.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 2% 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 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.
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 0.0% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 7% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.
Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 12.5% of allowed cases (in the 95% 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.