Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18954656 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING SECONDARY MARKET FOR PRIMARY CREATION AND REDEMPTION ACTIVITY IN SECURITIES | November 2024 | March 2025 | Allow | 4 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18660917 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING SECONDARY MARKET FOR PRIMARY CREATION AND REDEMPTION ACTIVITY IN SECURITIES | May 2024 | August 2024 | Allow | 4 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18441260 | SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING POINTS OF COMPROMISE | February 2024 | January 2025 | Allow | 11 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18434632 | IDENTIFYING AND PROVIDING UNFULFILLED SERVICES VIA AN ATM | February 2024 | February 2025 | Allow | 12 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18533815 | System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Learning Continuous Embedding Space of Real Time Payment Transactions | December 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18481667 | MODEL-BASED CONFIGURATION OF FINANCIAL PRODUCT OFFERINGS | October 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 18 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18353411 | Method and System for Financing Global Energy Assets through Diverse Financial Instruments on a Digital Marketplace | July 2023 | June 2025 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18214212 | MOBILE DEVICE DISABLING AND VERIFICATION SYSTEM AND METHOD | June 2023 | August 2024 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18318161 | COMPUTERIZED PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT TOOL | May 2023 | July 2024 | Allow | 14 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18303696 | Slicer Order Quantity Reduction Tool | April 2023 | July 2024 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18186020 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USING TOKENIZED ICONS TO PROVIDE INSURANCE POLICY QUOTES | March 2023 | March 2025 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18082167 | DIVERSE OPTIONS ORDER TYPES IN AN ELECTRONIC GUARANTEED ENTITLEMENT ENVIRONMENT | December 2022 | January 2025 | Allow | 25 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18060157 | MOBILE GIFT CERTIFICATE BROKERAGE APPARATUS APPLYING NFT TECHNOLOGY AND METHOD OF USING THE SAME | November 2022 | November 2024 | Abandon | 24 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17853225 | ACCELERATED TRADE MATCHING USING SPECULATIVE PARALLEL PROCESSING | June 2022 | April 2025 | Allow | 34 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17617158 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SECURING AND GENERATING REAL-TIME PRODUCT DATA STREAMS TO ENABLE LOW-LATENCY TRANSACTIONS | December 2021 | November 2024 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17596034 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETECTION OF ABNORMAL TRANSACTIONAL BEHAVIOR | December 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17539584 | FRAUD PREDICTION SERVICE | December 2021 | June 2025 | Abandon | 42 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17533846 | IDENTIFICATION OF ANOMALOUS TRANSACTION ATTRIBUTES IN REAL-TIME WITH ADAPTIVE THRESHOLD TUNING | November 2021 | February 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17453898 | CONTRACTOR POINT OF SALE SYSTEM | November 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 40 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17489222 | SMART CHIP CARD WITH FRAUD ALERT AND BIOMETRIC RESET | September 2021 | August 2024 | Allow | 35 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17390406 | SOCIAL FOREIGN CURRENCY EXCHANGE | July 2021 | July 2024 | Allow | 36 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17386158 | AUTOMATED PERFORMANCE OF PARAMETER-BASED OPERATIONS IN TRUSTED NETWORK ENVIRONMENTS | July 2021 | July 2024 | Allow | 36 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17380144 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING ENTERPRISE DATA USING BASE-LINE PROBABLE ROOF LOSS CONFIDENCE SCORES | July 2021 | June 2025 | Abandon | 47 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17338824 | DEEP BEHAVIORAL NETWORKS FOR FRAUD DETECTION | June 2021 | June 2025 | Allow | 49 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17016685 | Providing Transit Alternatives Based on Monitored Vehicle Characteristics | September 2020 | February 2025 | Abandon | 53 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15811521 | INSTANT AVAILABILITY OF ELECTRONICALLY TRANSFERRED FUNDS | November 2017 | October 2018 | Allow | 11 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15669518 | TECHNIQUES FOR AUTOMATED PRICE INDICATIONS | August 2017 | January 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14049471 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR QUICK QUOTE CONFIGURATION | October 2013 | April 2018 | Allow | 54 | 7 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13011411 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COMPOUND RISK FACTOR SAMPLING WITH INTEGRATED MARKET AND CREDIT RISK | January 2011 | May 2011 | Allow | 4 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13011553 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COMPOUND RISK FACTOR SAMPLING WITH INTEGRATED MARKET AND CREDIT RISK | January 2011 | May 2011 | Allow | 4 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12790717 | SYSTEM, METHOD AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR FACILITATING INFORMED DECISIONS RELATING TO THE FAIR SHARING OF THE COSTS OF INSURANCE BETWEEN A GROUP AND A THIRD PARTY | May 2010 | February 2013 | Allow | 33 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12790758 | DYNAMIC AGGREGATION OF INSURANCE PREMIUMS | May 2010 | June 2018 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 0 | No | No |
| 12026781 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COMPOUND RISK FACTOR SAMPLING WITH INTEGRATED MARKET AND CREDIT RISK | February 2008 | November 2010 | Allow | 34 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 11944267 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DELIVERING INFORMATION TO A MOBILE COMMUNICATION DEVICE BASED ON CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS | November 2007 | October 2019 | Abandon | 60 | 14 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 10893651 | Third party authentication of an electronic transaction | July 2004 | August 2009 | Abandon | 60 | 8 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 10064439 | WEB BASED COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION WITH RECONFIGURABLE FORMAT | July 2002 | September 2012 | Allow | 60 | 7 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner FU, HAO.
With a 20.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is below the USPTO average, indicating that appeals face more challenges here than typical.
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, 12.5% 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 FU, HAO works in Art Unit 3695 and has examined 32 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 62.5%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 35 months.
Examiner FU, HAO's allowance rate of 62.5% places them in the 16% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by FU, HAO receive 3.50 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 99% 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 FU, HAO is 35 months. This places the examiner in the 21% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -11.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by FU, HAO. 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, 10.0% 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 6.7% 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 37.5% of appeals filed. This is in the 4% 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, 54.5% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 69% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.
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 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.