USPTO Examiner ZHENG LI - Art Unit 1662

Examiner ZHENG, LI - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner ZHENG, LI works in Art Unit 1662 and has examined 869 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 87.3%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 21 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner ZHENG, LI's allowance rate of 87.3% places them in the 66% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by ZHENG, LI receive 1.43 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 23% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues significantly fewer office actions than most examiners.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by ZHENG, LI is 21 months. This places the examiner in the 90% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +9.4% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by ZHENG, LI. This interview benefit is in the 41% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 20.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 23% 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 42.4% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 65% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.

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 70% 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 82.6% of appeals filed. This is in the 75% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 68.4% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). 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, 83.6% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 86% 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 1.0% of allowed cases (in the 68% percentile). This examiner makes examiner's amendments more often than average to place applications in condition for allowance (MPEP § 1302.04).

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 3% percentile). This examiner rarely issues Quayle actions compared to other examiners. Allowances typically come directly without a separate action for formal matters.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

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