Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18440723 | DATABASE-CENTERED COMPUTER NETWORK SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHODS FOR CRYPTOGRAPHICALLY-SECURED DISTRIBUTED DATA MANAGEMENT BASED ON ENTROPY AND HAVING A SUPERVISORY NODE | February 2024 | May 2025 | Abandon | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18095476 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR ENCRYPTED MULTI-FACTOR AUTHENTICATION | January 2023 | May 2025 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17983802 | METHODS AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR CREDIT CARD LOCK | November 2022 | June 2025 | Abandon | 32 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17979621 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROOF-OF-STAKE VALIDATED SERVING OF STAKE-PRIORITIZED UTILITY | November 2022 | February 2025 | Abandon | 28 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 17770059 | TEE-BASED MINING POOLS FOR POW-CRYPTOCURRENCIES | April 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 35 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17763169 | TIME-LOCKED BLOCKCHAIN TRANSACTIONS AND RELATED BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY | March 2022 | April 2025 | Abandon | 37 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17761226 | SYSTEM, METHOD, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR SECURE KEY MANAGEMENT | March 2022 | May 2025 | Allow | 38 | 3 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17685624 | METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DETECTING FRAUDS BY UTILIZING SPEND PATTERNS OF PAYMENT INSTRUMENTS OF USER | March 2022 | March 2025 | Abandon | 36 | 3 | 0 | No | No |
| 17628510 | DIGITAL CONTRACTS USING BLOCKCHAIN TRANSACTIONS | January 2022 | June 2025 | Allow | 41 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17617578 | BLOCKCHAIN-BASED TRUSTED TRANSACTION METHOD FOR DATA PRODUCT | December 2021 | February 2025 | Abandon | 39 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17602213 | Method for Recording Data Related to Product Manufacture and Sales, and Related System | October 2021 | April 2025 | Abandon | 43 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 17477921 | Adding Additional Value to NFTs | September 2021 | May 2025 | Abandon | 48 | 5 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17386938 | METHOD FOR PROCESSING BANK TRANSACTIONS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE USING METHOD | July 2021 | February 2025 | Abandon | 43 | 4 | 0 | No | No |
| 17373027 | SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USE IN FACILITATING NETWORK TRANSACTIONS | July 2021 | June 2025 | Allow | 47 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.
Examiner KING, DAVIDA LEE works in Art Unit 3699 and has examined 13 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 23.1%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 38 months.
Examiner KING, DAVIDA LEE's allowance rate of 23.1% places them in the 1% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by KING, DAVIDA LEE receive 2.69 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 90% 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 KING, DAVIDA LEE is 38 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 +75.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KING, DAVIDA LEE. This interview benefit is in the 99% 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.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 14.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 5% 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 1% 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 file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 5% 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 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.