Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18626059 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OMNIDIRECTIONAL SYNCING OF PAYMENT DATA | April 2024 | September 2025 | Abandon | 17 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18283559 | TAGLESS MOBILE TICKET SERVICE METHOD | September 2023 | October 2025 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18216443 | COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHOD FOR EVALUATING AN INVESTMENT | June 2023 | November 2025 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18337736 | Cryptocurrency Analysis Process | June 2023 | September 2025 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18323296 | PAYMENT PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS WITH ADVANCED FUNDS | May 2023 | May 2025 | Allow | 24 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18313950 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR IMPROVING SECURITY OF A COMPUTER NETWORK UTILIZING SIMPLE MAIL TRANSFER PROTOCOL (SMTP) | May 2023 | January 2026 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18130468 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USING IMAGE DATA TO TRIGGER CONTACTLESS CARD TRANSACTIONS | April 2023 | March 2026 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 18081337 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DUAL EMAIL AND WEB BASED CHECKOUT IN AN UNSEGMENTED LIST | December 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17989724 | BLOCKCHAIN-BASED E-BUSINESS PLATFORM FOR METAVERSE DECENTRALIZATION | November 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 29 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17987577 | UNIVERSAL PAYMENT INTENT | November 2022 | December 2025 | Allow | 37 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17997253 | AUTOMATIC CHARGING CONNECTOR SELECTION | October 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17876654 | GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE AND CARD SYSTEM FOR ENGAGING IN CRYPTOCURRENCY TRANSACTIONS | July 2022 | December 2025 | Abandon | 41 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17868796 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR COMPLETING A TRANSACTION | July 2022 | August 2024 | Allow | 25 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17860221 | CHECK EXCEPTION PROCESSING IN THE METAVERSE | July 2022 | September 2025 | Abandon | 38 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17846540 | AUTOMATED PAYMENT SPLITTING | June 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17843559 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SECURING INFORMATION IN A NETWORK | June 2022 | December 2024 | Abandon | 30 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17824238 | REAL-TIME PROVISIONING OF TARGETED DIGITAL CONTENT BASED ON DECOMPOSED STRUCTURED MESSAGING DATA AND PEER DATA | May 2022 | February 2026 | Allow | 44 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17720438 | SPLIT INTEGRATOR MODEL FOR FACILITATING PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS | April 2022 | May 2025 | Abandon | 37 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17587351 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OMNIDIRECTIONAL SYNCING OF PAYMENT DATA | January 2022 | August 2025 | Abandon | 42 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17571978 | AUTHORIZATION FLOW MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | January 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 41 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17566936 | Voice Controlled Systems and Methods for Onboarding Users and Exchanging Data | December 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 45 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17553627 | REAL-TIME DETERMINATION OF TARGETED BEHAVIORAL DATA BASED ON DECOMPOSED STRUCTURED MESSAGING DATA | December 2021 | March 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17548683 | ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SYSTEM, ELECTRONIC MONEY MANAGEMENT METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE MEDIUM STORING ELECTRONIC MONEY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM | December 2021 | October 2024 | Abandon | 34 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17449982 | REAL-TIME SELECTION OF AUTHENTICATION PROCEDURES BASED ON RISK ASSESSMENT | October 2021 | July 2024 | Allow | 34 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17448264 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IMPLEMENTING A STANDARDIZE CONTEXT IDENTIFIER MODULE | September 2021 | May 2025 | Abandon | 43 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17391054 | RISK QUANTIFICATION FOR INSURANCE PROCESS MANAGEMENT EMPLOYING AN ADVANCED INSURANCE MANAGEMENT AND DECISION PLATFORM | August 2021 | October 2025 | Allow | 50 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17416800 | INSTANT MONEY TRANSFER METHODS AND SYSTEM FOR IMPLEMENTING SAME | June 2021 | December 2025 | Abandon | 54 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17344251 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING TRANSFERS OF DIGITAL ASSETS | June 2021 | December 2024 | Abandon | 43 | 4 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 17319555 | DISTRIBUTED-LEDGER BASED DISTRIBUTED TRANSACTION PROCESSING AS A BROKERED SERVICE | May 2021 | September 2025 | Abandon | 52 | 6 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16910719 | SYSTEM HAVING IMAGING APPARATUS TO RECOGNIZE USERS AND PROCESS FARE CHARGING, CONTROL METHOD OF SYSTEM, AND STORAGE MEDIUM | June 2020 | December 2024 | Abandon | 54 | 6 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16643053 | ENCRYPTED AND AUTHENTICATED MESSAGE SERVICES | February 2020 | September 2024 | Abandon | 55 | 5 | 0 | No | No |
| 15843251 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENHANCED AUTHORIZATION PROCESSES | December 2017 | June 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 7 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14661055 | MINING UNSTRUCTURED ONLINE CONTENT FOR AUTOMATED CURRENCY VALUE CONVERSION | March 2015 | May 2018 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KANAAN, TONY P.
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 KANAAN, TONY P works in Art Unit 3696 and has examined 13 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 30.8%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 45 months.
Examiner KANAAN, TONY P's allowance rate of 30.8% places them in the 4% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by KANAAN, TONY P receive 4.15 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 KANAAN, TONY P is 45 months. This places the examiner in the 13% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -22.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KANAAN, TONY P. 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, 8.8% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 4% 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 4% 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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 41% 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 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.