Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.
| Application Number | Title | Filing Date | Disposal Date | Disposition | Time (months) | Office Actions | Restrictions | Interview | Appeal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18706720 | WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM | May 2024 | July 2025 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 18297056 | Decentralized Ledger Supply Chain Planning Interchange | April 2023 | May 2024 | Allow | 13 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18102309 | DISTRIBUTED DATABASE METHODS AND SYSTEMS | January 2023 | February 2024 | Allow | 12 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 18148803 | PAYMENT INTEGRATED LOYALTY SYSTEM | December 2022 | April 2024 | Allow | 15 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 18068401 | INTEROPERABLE MOBILE-INITIATED TRANSACTIONS WITH DYNAMIC AUTHENTICATION | December 2022 | February 2024 | Allow | 14 | 0 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 17861709 | MASKING A PRIMARY ACCOUNT NUMBER BETWEEN A PARTY AND A SERVICE PROVIDER | July 2022 | February 2024 | Allow | 19 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 16733210 | SECURE ON-LINE TICKETING | January 2020 | March 2024 | Allow | 51 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 16711232 | SOFTWARE LICENSE MANAGER | December 2019 | April 2024 | Allow | 52 | 4 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 16274756 | System, Method, and Computer Program Product for a Distributed, Cryptographically Secured Proof-of-Intent Transaction Network | February 2019 | October 2025 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 16056729 | FAIR TRANSACTION ORDERING IN BLOCKCHAINS | August 2018 | March 2024 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 0 | No | Yes |
| 15069572 | NETWORK PAYMENT TOKENIZATION FOR PROCESSING PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS | March 2016 | October 2019 | Allow | 43 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 15067170 | DATA COMMUNICATION METHOD USING SECURE ELEMENT AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEM ADOPTING THE SAME | March 2016 | January 2020 | Allow | 46 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 14190407 | METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PERSONALITY TRAITS OF A GROUP OF CONSUMERS AND A BRAND/PRODUCT | February 2014 | March 2025 | Abandon | 60 | 9 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 14053931 | AUTHENTICATION OF AN END USER | October 2013 | December 2013 | Allow | 2 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 13664249 | REAL-TIME EXPENDITURE AND TRANSACTION MANAGEMENT | October 2012 | October 2019 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 13531546 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING TOKENLESS BIOMETRIC ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSIONS USING AN ELECTRONIC RULE MODULE CLEARINGHOUSE | June 2012 | February 2013 | Allow | 8 | 1 | 1 | No | No |
| 13494077 | AUTHENTICATION OF AN END USER | June 2012 | June 2013 | Allow | 12 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 13433393 | Allocation of Application Licenses within Cloud or Infrastructure | March 2012 | August 2019 | Allow | 60 | 4 | 2 | Yes | No |
| 13407738 | SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT AMONGST WORKGROUPS USING SOFTWARE USAGE DATA | February 2012 | October 2012 | Allow | 8 | 0 | 0 | No | No |
| 12782707 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USING DIGITAL STRINGS TO PROVIDE SECURE DISTRIBUTION OF DIGITAL CONTENT | May 2010 | January 2013 | Allow | 32 | 2 | 1 | No | No |
| 12501547 | SOFTWARE LICENSE USAGE AMONGST WORKGROUPS USING SOFTWARE USAGE DATA | July 2009 | February 2012 | Allow | 31 | 1 | 0 | No | No |
| 12316221 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTHENTICATING AN END USER | December 2008 | March 2012 | Allow | 39 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11818554 | Method and system for measuring viewership of people for displayed object | June 2007 | December 2019 | Allow | 60 | 8 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11671220 | WEB-BASED SYSTEM PROVIDING ROYALTY PROCESSING AND REPORTING SERVICES | February 2007 | April 2012 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | Yes |
| 11525287 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RELAXING MEDIA ACCESS RESTRICTIONS OVER TIME | September 2006 | November 2010 | Allow | 50 | 4 | 1 | Yes | Yes |
| 11458800 | SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR USING DIGITAL STRINGS TO PROVIDE SECURE DISTRIBUTION OF DIGITAL CONTENT | July 2006 | December 2009 | Allow | 41 | 1 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 11365564 | MULTIPLE DRM MANAGEMENT | March 2006 | March 2009 | Allow | 37 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11345923 | PROVIDING SEALED STORAGE IN A DATA PROCESSING DEVICE | February 2006 | December 2012 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | Yes | No |
| 10560855 | MULTIMEDIA-TYPE CONTENTS REPRODUCTION DEVICE AND REPRODUCTION METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM HAVING STORED THEREON DATA USED FOR THE SAME | December 2005 | April 2012 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 1 | No | No |
| 11037447 | METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DEPLOYING AND LICENSING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICE COMPUTER SOFTWARE INFRASTRUCTURE TO MANUFACTURERS | January 2005 | April 2014 | Allow | 60 | 5 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10518797 | CONTENT PROVIDING SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE AND METHOD, AND PROGRAM | December 2004 | May 2010 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 11003866 | ENABLEMENT OF SYSTEM FEATURES WITH IMPROVED FEATURE KEY | December 2004 | October 2010 | Allow | 60 | 2 | 0 | No | No |
| 10919338 | PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION METHOD AND SYSTEM | August 2004 | April 2009 | Allow | 55 | 1 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10756045 | PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZED SMARTCARD TRANSACTION MANAGEMENT | January 2004 | May 2010 | Allow | 60 | 3 | 1 | Yes | No |
| 10352078 | DATA COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | January 2003 | August 2012 | Allow | 60 | 9 | 3 | Yes | Yes |
| 09854306 | SOFTWARE LICENSING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM | May 2001 | October 2009 | Abandon | 60 | 5 | 0 | No | Yes |
This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner COPPOLA, JACOB C.
With a 33.3% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is above the USPTO average, indicating that appeals have better success here than typical.
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, 25.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is below the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal has limited effectiveness in prompting favorable reconsideration.
✓ 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 shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.
Examiner COPPOLA, JACOB C works in Art Unit 3992 and has examined 30 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 93.3%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 10000 months.
Examiner COPPOLA, JACOB C's allowance rate of 93.3% places them in the 81% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.
On average, applications examined by COPPOLA, JACOB 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 COPPOLA, JACOB C is 10000 months. This places the examiner in the 1% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.
Conducting an examiner interview provides a +5.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by COPPOLA, JACOB C. This interview benefit is in the 30% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.
When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 28.6% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 52% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. Consider whether your amendments or new arguments are strong enough to warrant an RCE versus filing a continuation.
This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 15.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 17% 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 24% 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 53.8% of appeals filed. This is in the 25% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 14.3% 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.
When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 90.9% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 89% 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's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 26.7% of allowed cases (in the 99% percentile). Per MPEP § 1302.04, examiner's amendments are used to place applications in condition for allowance when only minor changes are needed. This examiner frequently uses this tool compared to other examiners, indicating a cooperative approach to getting applications allowed. Strategic Insight: If you are close to allowance but minor claim amendments are needed, this examiner may be willing to make an examiner's amendment rather than requiring another round of prosecution.
Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 52% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions more often than average when claims are allowable but formal matters remain (MPEP § 714.14).
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.