USPTO Examiner KUCAB JAMIE R - Art Unit 3699

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
19040516TRANSACTION AND SETTLEMENT VALIDATION SERVICEJanuary 2025May 2025Allow401YesNo
18616184TRANSACTION AND SETTLEMENT VALIDATION SERVICEMarch 2024January 2025Allow920YesNo
18617527SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DYNAMIC ALLOCATION OF TRANSACTION-BOUND ATTRIBUTES USING MACHINE LEARNING MODELSMarch 2024May 2024Allow200YesNo
18439701ACCESS CONTROL INTERFACE FOR MANAGING ENTITIES AND PERMISSIONSFebruary 2024September 2024Allow800YesNo
18433257ACCESS CONTROL INTERFACE FOR MANAGING ENTITIES AND PERMISSIONSFebruary 2024September 2024Allow800YesNo
18475081INTERACTIVE DIGITAL RECEIPTSeptember 2023April 2025Allow1810YesNo
18228558ACCESS CONTROL TOWERJuly 2023September 2024Allow1310NoNo
18221775ACCESS CONTROL TOWERJuly 2023September 2024Allow1410YesNo
18342532METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR EVALUATING CONTRIBUTIONS TO CREATION OF ELEMENT OF PROTOTYPEJune 2023August 2024Allow1421YesNo
18196205SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING A SEAMLESS VEHICLE CARE AT A VEHICLE CARE SITEMay 2023July 2024Allow1520YesNo
18126773ACCESS CONTROL TOWERMarch 2023September 2024Allow1710NoNo
17900536EXPEDITED E-COMMERCE TOKENIZATIONAugust 2022December 2024Allow2720YesNo
17876822DETECTION OF USE OF A REMOTE ACCESS TOOL FOR SECURE TRANSACTIONSJuly 2022June 2025Allow3421YesNo
17876199SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO ADJUST IN-VEHICLE CONTENT BASED ON DIGITAL ASSETSJuly 2022February 2025Allow3110YesNo
17843672SYSTEM FOR RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND MONITORINGJune 2022March 2025Abandon3310NoNo
17833760ENCAPSULATION OF PAYMENT INFORMATIONJune 2022July 2024Allow2620YesNo
17756350Method and System for Reducing a Time to Authenticate a UserMay 2022March 2025Allow3420YesNo
17732153DEPLOYING A CLOUD-BASED SYSTEM USING A DISTRIBUTED LEDGERApril 2022February 2025Allow3421NoNo
17659758METHOD AND SYSTEM OF NFT VALIDATION IN A BROKER MARKETPLACEApril 2022March 2025Allow3520YesNo
17769314SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVED ELECTRONIC TRANSFER OF RESOURCES VIA A BLOCKCHAINApril 2022December 2024Abandon3210NoNo
17658436METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR BLOCKCHAIN COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE, DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUMApril 2022October 2024Abandon3110NoNo
17654751Interface for Constructing Smart Protocols for Execution on Blockchain PlatformsMarch 2022August 2024Allow2911YesNo
17585852BLOCKCHAIN-BASED LICENSE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKJanuary 2022December 2024Allow3420YesNo
17489648TICKET AUTHENTICATION AND AUDIT SERVICESeptember 2021February 2025Allow4021NoNo
17458079COMPUTING SYSTEM FOR DISTRIBUTING CRYPTOCURRENCYAugust 2021January 2025Allow4120YesNo
17393099ACCESS CONTROL INTERFACE FOR MANAGING ENTITIES AND PERMISSIONSAugust 2021August 2024Allow3620YesNo
17363237TOKENIZATION PLATFORM FOR FACILITATING A TOKEN-BASED DIGITAL MARKETPLACEJune 2021April 2023Allow2230NoNo
17040234Banking Processing Method And Computer-Readable Storage Medium Having Application For Banking Processing Stored ThereinSeptember 2020December 2024Allow5040YesNo
16934439SECURE OFFLINE APPROVAL OF INITIATED DATA EXCHANGESJuly 2020March 2025Allow5640YesNo
16154064TERMINAL DATA ENCRYPTIONOctober 2018March 2021Allow2901YesNo
15723078ACCESS CONTROL TOWEROctober 2017January 2021Allow3910NoNo
15660385DECENTRALIZED IDENTITIES FOR ACCESS TO MULTIPLE COMPUTING RESOURCE SYSTEMSJuly 2017February 2021Allow4320YesNo
15645118System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Performing Analysis of Transaction DataJuly 2017January 2021Allow4220YesNo
15486170CRYPTOCONOMY SOLUTION FOR ADMINISTRATION AND GOVERNANCE IN A DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMApril 2017January 2021Allow4520NoNo
15485736ELECTRONIC CAR KEY AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMApril 2017June 2021Allow5140YesNo
15460485PAYMENT TRANSACTION METHOD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE THEREFORMarch 2017November 2020Allow4420NoNo
15261368SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATICALLY SECURING AND VALIDATING MULTI-SERVER ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS OVER A PLURALITY OF NETWORKSSeptember 2016February 2021Allow5321YesNo
15215587ACCOUNTING FOR ONLINE SYSTEM USER ACTIONS OCCURRING GREATER THAN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER PRESENTING CONTENT TO THE USERS WHEN SELECTING CONTENT FOR USERSJuly 2016September 2019Allow3820YesNo
14094602Individualized Digital Media Delivery SystemsDecember 2013May 2019Allow6040YesNo
12120666SYSTEMS, METHODS AND COMPUTER PRODUCTS FOR PROVIDING TAPE LIBRARY DYNAMIC PRICE PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT FEATUREMay 2008September 2008Allow400NoNo
10518686SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTING PROMOTION MESSAGES TO A COMMUNICATION TERMINALDecember 2004March 2019Allow60101YesYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner KUCAB, JAMIE R.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
2
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(50.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(50.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
81.8%
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, 50.0% 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.

Strategic Recommendations

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

Examiner KUCAB, JAMIE R - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner KUCAB, JAMIE R works in Art Unit 3699 and has examined 36 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 91.7%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner KUCAB, JAMIE R's allowance rate of 91.7% places them in the 76% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by KUCAB, JAMIE R receive 2.08 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 69% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues a slightly above-average number of office actions.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by KUCAB, JAMIE R is 34 months. This places the examiner in the 25% 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 +25.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by KUCAB, JAMIE R. This interview benefit is in the 75% 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, 36.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 79% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 10.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 5% 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.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

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.

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 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 Cooperation and Flexibility

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.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

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

  • 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.
  • RCEs are effective: This examiner has a high allowance rate after RCE compared to others. If you receive a final rejection and have substantive amendments or arguments, an RCE is likely to be successful.
  • Appeal filing as negotiation tool: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
  • 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.