USPTO Examiner LEE CLAY C - Art Unit 3699

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18590198SECURE AUTHENTICATION AND TRANSACTION SYSTEM AND METHODFebruary 2024August 2024Allow610YesNo
18457712PROCURING AND PRESENTING DEPOSIT TRANSACTION DETAILSAugust 2023February 2025Abandon1810NoNo
18202212Non-Commutative Node-Centric Digital Rights Management SystemMay 2023June 2025Abandon2510NoNo
18323855MULTI-MERCHANT LOYALTY POINT PARTNERSHIPMay 2023September 2024Allow1610YesNo
18317779Systems and Methods for Distributing, Purchasing, Owning, and Playing Video On Demand and Distributing RoyaltiesMay 2023February 2025Abandon2110NoNo
18144856SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DIGITAL CRYPTO TREASURE HUNT USING CRYPTOGRAPHICALLY SECURED ASSETS AND CRYPTOCURRENCY WALLET SEED PHRASES WITHIN ELECTRONIC ARTMay 2023June 2025Abandon2510NoNo
18169873AUTOMATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COPIOUS ELECTRONIC ASSET TRANSFERSFebruary 2023January 2025Abandon2340YesNo
18168170SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COMPLETING AN INTERACTION AT A PARTICULAR TIME DETERMINED BY A USERFebruary 2023May 2025Abandon2710YesNo
18151371EXPEDITED VIRTUAL CURRENCY TRANSACTION SYSTEMJanuary 2023October 2024Allow2220YesNo
18060313SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EXECUTING REAL-TIME ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS USING A ROUTING DECISION MODELNovember 2022March 2025Allow2830YesNo
17936057SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS, ALERTS, DISPUTE SETTLEMENT, AND SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS, USING MULTIPLE BLOCKCHAINSSeptember 2022June 2024Allow2110YesNo
17947517HIGH AUTHENTICATION LAYER TO DETERMINE A PERSON'S LOCATION WHEN CONSIDERING SENDING A SECURE OBJECTSeptember 2022May 2025Allow3230YesNo
17821355SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR LOYALTY POINT DISTRIBUTIONAugust 2022October 2024Allow2620YesNo
17758792SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SECURE PEER-TO-PEER TRANSMISSION OF CONTENT IN DISTRIBUTED LEDGER NEWORKSJuly 2022December 2024Abandon2910NoNo
17855408SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING CRYPTOCURRENCYJune 2022March 2025Allow3320YesNo
17655570SYSTEM FOR ACCESSING NON-FUNGIBLE TOKENSMarch 2022June 2024Allow2710YesNo
17574562AUTOMATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COPIOUS ELECTRONIC ASSET TRANSFERSJanuary 2022March 2025Abandon3810NoNo
17644712SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING WEBPAGES AS UNIQUE ASSET TOKENSDecember 2021February 2024Abandon2620NoNo
17545915USER ACTIVITY DETECTION FOR LOCKING CRYPTOCURRENCY CONVERSIONSDecember 2021November 2024Allow3520YesNo
17515260SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR USER AUTHENTICATION TO VERIFY TRANSACTION LEGITIMACYOctober 2021August 2024Allow3420YesNo
17512656Dynamic Ledger Address MaskingOctober 2021November 2024Allow3630YesNo
17488717SYSTEM FOR STORE AND FORWARD IN POINT OF SALE TRANSACTIONSSeptember 2021May 2025Allow4440YesNo
17469207SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EPHEMERAL COMPUTE WITH PAYMENT CARD PROCESSINGSeptember 2021August 2024Allow3530YesNo
17469053MERCHANT UNIVERSAL PAYMENT IDENTIFIER SYSTEMSeptember 2021November 2024Allow3830YesNo
17412182REMOTELY SHARING A PAYMENT INSTRUMENT TO A CLIENT DEVICEAugust 2021January 2025Allow4130YesNo
17403896CRYPTOCURRENCY USING DIGITALLY LOCKED COINSAugust 2021March 2025Allow4240YesNo
17392281DECENTRALIZED HASHTAG SEARCH SYSTEM AND METHODAugust 2021March 2025Abandon4410NoNo
17391969MODEL FOR REPRESENTING ONLINE OWNERSHIP INFORMATIONAugust 2021January 2025Allow4240YesNo
17371068AUTOMATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COPIOUS ELECTRONIC ASSET TRANSFERSJuly 2021March 2025Abandon4510NoNo
17338273SYSTEM FOR GENERATING STACKED NON-FUNGIBLE TOKENS ON A COLLABORATIVE TECHNICAL PLATFORMJune 2021March 2025Abandon4530YesNo
17313139OFFLINE BIDIRECTIONAL TRANSACTION AND SECURE SYSTEMMay 2021June 2024Allow3830YesNo
17229150SYSTEM, MEDICAL DEVICES, NETWORK COMPONENTS, DEVICES, PROCESSES AND COMPUTER PROGRAMS FOR MEDICAL DEVICES AND FOR NETWORK COMPONENTSApril 2021December 2024Allow4430YesNo
17228274Voter Identification Using Mobile Identification CredentialApril 2021June 2025Allow5050NoYes
17199611Method and System for Dynamically Processing Financial TransactionsMarch 2021October 2024Allow4340YesNo
17187036SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CAPTURING COMPLEX RIGHTS RELATING TO DATA LICENSESFebruary 2021May 2025Abandon5140YesNo
17174650SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DISTRIBUTED LEDGER-BASED INSTITUTIONAL IDENTITY MANAGEMENTFebruary 2021September 2024Allow4340YesNo
17135443SECURE CONTACTLESS CREDENTIAL EXCHANGEDecember 2020July 2024Allow4240YesNo
17084291SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING AND UTILIZING TEMPORARY DIGITAL WALLETOctober 2020February 2025Allow5230YesNo
16961473Method for Determining an Association Between a Bankcard and a Communications Terminal, Device, System and Corresponding ProgramJuly 2020July 2024Allow4940YesNo
16959862METHODS FOR ACCESS POINT SYSTEMS AND PAYMENT SYSTEMS THEREFORJuly 2020February 2025Allow5640YesNo
16957280PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR FEE CALCULATION, AND VEHICLE PAYMENT SYSTEMJune 2020July 2024Allow4940YesNo
16840566METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR USE OF AN EMV CARD IN A MULTI-SIGNATURE WALLET FOR CRYPTOCURRENCY TRANSACTIONSApril 2020September 2024Allow5350YesNo
16643831Controller, Method for Managing License, and Program for Managing LicenseMarch 2020December 2024Abandon5850YesYes
16799344Configuring Verification Information At Point-of-Sale DevicesFebruary 2020April 2025Allow6030YesNo
16728959SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SMART DEVICE COMMUNICATION AND TRANSACTION PROCESSINGDecember 2019June 2024Allow5450YesNo
16718444SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DYNAMIC APPLICATION OF TOKENS IN CREDIT AUTHORIZATIONDecember 2019February 2025Allow6080YesNo
16697885METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SECURELY FACILITATING CROSS-PLATFORM TOKEN COMPATIBILITY VIA MULTI-TOKENIZATIONNovember 2019September 2024Allow5860YesNo
16692655TRANSACTION-ENABLED SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TRANSACTION EXECUTION WITH LICENSING SMART WRAPPERSNovember 2019September 2024Allow6040YesNo
16603831ANONYMITY AND TRACEABILITY OF DIGITAL PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS ON A DISTRIBUTED TRANSACTION CONSENSUS NETWORKOctober 2019July 2024Allow5741YesNo
16595256LEDGER PROCESSING SYSTEM AND METHODOctober 2019January 2025Abandon6040YesNo
16381405MEDIA LICENSING METHOD AND SYSTEM USING BLOCKCHAINApril 2019October 2024Allow6060YesNo
16275872DECENTRALIZED PROCESS MANAGEMENT USING DISTRIBUTED LEDGERSFebruary 2019August 2024Allow6060YesNo
15967377SECURE AUTHENTICATION AND TRANSACTION SYSTEM AND METHODApril 2018July 2024Allow6041YesNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner LEE, CLAY C.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
0
(0.0%)
Examiner Reversed
1
(100.0%)
Reversal Percentile
98.6%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 100.0% reversal rate, the PTAB has reversed the examiner's rejections more often than affirming them. 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
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

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 LEE, CLAY C - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner LEE, CLAY C works in Art Unit 3699 and has examined 52 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 71.2%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 42 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner LEE, CLAY C's allowance rate of 71.2% places them in the 26% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by LEE, CLAY C receive 3.13 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 97% 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 LEE, CLAY C is 42 months. This places the examiner in the 5% 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 +75.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LEE, CLAY C. 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.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 29.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 46% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show below-average effectiveness with this examiner. Carefully evaluate whether an RCE or continuation is the better strategy.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 2.9% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 100.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 75% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. If you have strong arguments, a PAC request may result in favorable reconsideration.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 66.7% of appeals filed. This is in the 46% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 50.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 80.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 92% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.

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:

  • 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.