USPTO Examiner XIAO ZESHENG - Art Unit 3698

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18642794AUTOMATED DATA TOKENIZATION THROUGH NETWORKED SENSORSApril 2024July 2025Allow1510NoNo
18602220ON-DEMAND APPLICATIONS TO EXTEND WEB SERVICESMarch 2024June 2025Allow1520YesNo
18404558METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR CONSOLIDATING, DISTRIBUTING AND INTEGRATING ISSUER INFORMATION FOR A VOTING ENTITYJanuary 2024April 2025Abandon1510NoNo
18497407AUTHENTICATED DATA FEED FOR BLOCKCHAINSOctober 2023December 2025Allow2520NoYes
18371945SECURE CONTROL OF TRANSACTIONS USING BLOCKCHAINSeptember 2023August 2025Allow2330YesNo
18370854System and Method of Editing and Proofing an Election BallotSeptember 2023December 2025Abandon2740YesNo
18546615SECURE AND COMPLIANT MULTI-CRYPTOCURRENCY PAYMENT GATEWAYAugust 2023September 2025Abandon2510NoNo
18127588Cross-Blockchain Transaction RebroadcastingMarch 2023September 2025Allow3020YesNo
18245344SPEAK-TO-EARN TOKENSMarch 2023September 2025Abandon3010NoNo
18145782SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FACILITATING ENHANCED OFFLINE PAYMENTDecember 2022December 2024Allow2310YesNo
18081451Methods and Systems for Transferring Cryptocurrency Between a Plurality of Wallets, Without Revealing an Origin or a Destination or Encrypted, Origin or a DestinationDecember 2022June 2025Abandon3010NoNo
17989572DYNAMIC DISCOVERY AND APPLICATION OF STORED-VALUE TOKENSNovember 2022September 2025Abandon3410NoNo
17875898EMPTY SELF-CONTROL CARD SYSTEM AND OPERATION METHOD THEREOFJuly 2022October 2024Abandon2630NoNo
17714747Method to provide digital design contentApril 2022April 2025Abandon3620NoNo
17708800SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SECURE AND CONTACTLESS FUND TRANSFER IN OPEN AND CLOSED LOOP TRANSACTIONSMarch 2022January 2026Allow4650YesNo
17698544SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GRANTING SMART CONTRACTSMarch 2022December 2025Abandon4540YesNo
17697786MULTI-LAYER CRYPTOCURRENCY CONVERSIONS USING AVAILABLE BLOCKCHAIN OUTPUTSMarch 2022March 2026Allow4831YesNo
17651759EXCHANGE ITEM GROUP SHARING IN A COMPUTING NETWORKFebruary 2022November 2024Allow3320NoNo
17607588ONLINE PAYMENT SYSTEMOctober 2021January 2025Abandon3810NoNo
17440463PAYMENT TRANSACTION HANDLING IN A RADIO COMMUNICATION NETWORKSeptember 2021May 2025Abandon4440NoNo
17359220SERVER-SIDE REDIRECT OF UNIFORM RESOURCE LOCATOR GENERATED BY CONTACTLESS CARDJune 2021March 2026Allow5660YesNo
17344962INFORMATION DELIVERY METHOD FOR TRANSFERRING FUND AND ELECTRONIC DEVICEJune 2021November 2024Abandon4240YesNo
17231007BLOCKCHAIN-BASED CONTENT SHARING AND CREATION SERVER, CONTENT DISTRIBUTION SERVER, AND SYSTEM INCLUDING SAMEApril 2021November 2024Abandon4310NoNo
17219113DATA PROCESSING METHOD, APPARATUS, DEVICE, AND MEDIUM IN BLOCKCHAIN FUND SETTLEMENT SYSTEMMarch 2021August 2024Allow4140YesNo
17281434PAYMENT INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, APPARATUS, DEVICE AND COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE MEDIUMMarch 2021October 2024Abandon4321NoNo
17213083SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATICALLY PROCESSING ONLINE REFUND REQUESTMarch 2021April 2025Abandon4830YesNo
17057183A SYSTEM AND A METHOD FOR ACHIEVING CONSENSUS BETWEEN MULTIPLE PARTIES ON AN EVENTNovember 2020November 2024Abandon4820NoNo
17057490Programmable TransactionsNovember 2020February 2026Abandon6050YesNo
17067165PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION SECURE PERSON-TO-PERSON PAYMENT TECHNOLOGYOctober 2020September 2025Allow5941YesYes
16999371SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT-LINKING CHECKOUTAugust 2020September 2024Allow4930YesNo
16821819METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR BLOCKCHAIN DIGITAL CURRENCY STAKE DELEGATIONMarch 2020May 2025Abandon6040YesNo
16505064TECHNIQUES TO ELECTRONICALLY SHARE TRANSACTION CARD INFORMATIONJuly 2019December 2025Abandon60100YesYes
16297507DECENTRALIZED CONFIDENTIAL TRANSFER SYSTEM, METHOD AND DEVICEMarch 2019November 2024Abandon6040NoNo
15629837METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INDEXING CONSUMER ENROLLMENT USING BLOCKCHAINJune 2017July 2025Abandon6080YesYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner XIAO, ZESHENG.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
2
Examiner Affirmed
1
(50.0%)
Examiner Reversed
1
(50.0%)
Reversal Percentile
78.0%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 50.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals are more successful here than in most other areas.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
3
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(33.3%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(66.7%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
54.8%
Higher than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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, 33.3% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.

Strategic Recommendations

Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.

Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Examiner XIAO, ZESHENG - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner XIAO, ZESHENG works in Art Unit 3698 and has examined 16 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 25.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 49 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner XIAO, ZESHENG's allowance rate of 25.0% places them in the 3% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by XIAO, ZESHENG receive 4.06 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.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by XIAO, ZESHENG 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.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +40.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by XIAO, ZESHENG. This interview benefit is in the 87% 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 4.9% 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.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 14.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 15% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 33.3% of appeals filed. This is in the 5% 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.

Petition Practice

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 Cooperation and Flexibility

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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.
  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.
  • Plan for RCE after final rejection: This examiner rarely enters after-final amendments. Budget for an RCE in your prosecution strategy if you receive a final rejection.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

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.