Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18717089 | A SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ENFORCEABLE AND DIVISIBLE TOKENIZATION OF PROPERTY | June 2024 | March 2026 | Abandon | 21 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18698751 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DISTRIBUTED BLOCKCHAIN FUNCTIONALITIES | April 2024 | March 2026 | Abandon | 23 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18406519 | METHOD FOR ISSUING FAN TOKEN BASED ON BLOCKCHAIN NETWORK AND BLOCKCHAIN SYSTEM USING THE SAME | January 2024 | March 2026 | Abandon | 26 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18526576 | SERVER AND PLATFORM FOR VERIFYING BLOCKCHAIN-RELATED RELIABILITY IN INTEGRATIVE MANNER AND OPERATING METHOD OF THE SAME | December 2023 | February 2026 | Abandon | 27 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18523094 | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSET FRACTIONAL PAYMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD | November 2023 | January 2026 | Abandon | 25 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17934146 | Cryptographically Enabling Characteristic Assignment to Identities with Tokens, Token Validity Assessments and State Capture Processes | September 2022 | August 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17933659 | Systems and Methods for Token Content Unlocking, Biometric Authentication using Privacy-Protecting Tokens, Ownership-Based Limitations of Content Access, Policy-Based Time Capsule Technology, and Content Lock Mechanisms | September 2022 | August 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 17902808 | DRONE CONTENT SERVICE PLATFORM AND METHOD | September 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 37 | 0 | 1 | No | No |
| 17633344 | INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, PAYMENT PROCESSING SYSTEM, METHOD, AND PROGRAM | February 2022 | October 2025 | Abandon | 45 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 17629467 | BLOCKCHAIN-BASED LOGISTICS PHYSICAL ITEM HANDOVER METHOD, PLATFORM AND STORAGE MEDIUM | January 2022 | February 2025 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17300944 | Crypto currency hardware wallet | December 2021 | March 2026 | Abandon | 51 | 2 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 17551797 | METHOD AND SYSTEM OF PROVIDING INTEROPERABILITY BETWEEN DIFFERENT PAYMENT RAILS | December 2021 | February 2026 | Allow | 50 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 17550277 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTHENTICATION TO A NETWORK BASED ON STORED ID CREDENTIALS | December 2021 | January 2026 | Abandon | 49 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17510965 | EXECUTABLE CODE BLOCKS BASED ON CAPTURED USER INTERACTIONS | October 2021 | February 2025 | Abandon | 40 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17215943 | GAMING LICENSE PRIORITIZATION BASED ON CLIENT DEVICE | March 2021 | April 2025 | Abandon | 48 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17053582 | SYSTEM FOR PROTECTING INTEGRITY OF TRANSACTION DATA | November 2020 | November 2024 | Abandon | 48 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner STEVENSON, CHRISTINA C.
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, 100.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
✓ Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
Examiner STEVENSON, CHRISTINA C works in Art Unit 3698 and has examined 6 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 16.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 49 months.
Examiner STEVENSON, CHRISTINA C's allowance rate of 16.7% places them in the 2% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by STEVENSON, CHRISTINA C receive 3.00 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 87% 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 STEVENSON, CHRISTINA C is 49 months. This places the examiner in the 7% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a -25.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by STEVENSON, CHRISTINA C. 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, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 1% 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 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 98% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.
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 45% 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.