USPTO Examiner LE TOBEY CHOU - Art Unit 1747

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
19196116Vaping Device with Integrated Smoke NeutralizationMay 2025November 2025Allow721YesNo
18005456Heating Apparatus for an Aerosol Generating DeviceJanuary 2023March 2026Abandon3810NoNo
18094094ATOMIZATION DEVICEJanuary 2023November 2025Abandon3401NoNo
17925487Aerosol Generating SystemNovember 2022February 2026Abandon3901NoNo
17936841ELECTROMAGNETIC HEATER FOR HEATING HOOKAH AND ELECTROMAGNETIC HEATING DEVICE FOR HOOKAHSeptember 2022January 2026Abandon4020NoNo
17907548ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE CONTROL METHOD AND APPARATUSSeptember 2022June 2025Abandon3310NoNo
17931554Dual-airway intake structure, power supply device, and aerosol generating deviceSeptember 2022June 2025Abandon3310NoNo
17930723ATOMIZER AND AEROSOL GENERATING DEVICESeptember 2022March 2026Abandon4220NoNo
17904546MONITORING THE COMPOSITION OF A PUFF FROM AN ELECTRONIC VAPORIZERAugust 2022December 2025Abandon3921NoNo
17813521SMOKING SUBSTITUTE DEVICE, CAP REMOVAL DEVICE, AND SYSTEMJuly 2022June 2025Abandon3410NoNo
17813531AEROSOL DELIVERY APPARATUSJuly 2022May 2025Abandon3410NoNo
17862424E-cigaretteJuly 2022September 2025Abandon3820NoNo
17791900AEROSOL GENERATING DEVICEJuly 2022October 2025Abandon3920NoNo
17859379SMOKING APPARATUSJuly 2022April 2025Abandon3310NoNo
17857776Versatile Vaporizer Containing an Amount of Product for Multiple UseJuly 2022December 2025Abandon4102NoNo
17758305HEATING ASSEMBLY AND ELECTRIC HEATING SMOKING SETJuly 2022February 2026Allow4340NoNo
17853959CUT TOBACCO HEATING DEVICEJune 2022June 2025Abandon3510NoNo
17787777AN AEROSOL-GENERATOR COMPRISING MULTIPLE SUPPLY ELEMENTSJune 2022January 2026Allow4330NoNo
17839502HEATING CORE AND ATOMIZER THEREOFJune 2022February 2025Abandon3201NoNo
17781605E-liquid Composition Comprising 1,3-Propanediol Below 50% by Weight of the CompositionJune 2022December 2025Allow4230YesNo
17824089BATTERY ASSEMBLY AND ELECTRONIC VAPORIZATION DEVICEMay 2022September 2025Abandon3920NoNo
17747067MODULAR SMOKING PIPEMay 2022August 2025Allow3930YesNo
17743467HEATING ASSEMBLY, ATOMIZER AND ELECTRONIC CIGARETTEMay 2022November 2025Abandon4221NoNo
17739446BALL-ASSISTED SMOKING DEVICEMay 2022October 2025Abandon4140YesNo
17451846AEROSOL PROVISION SYSTEMOctober 2021April 2025Abandon4201NoNo
17434886VAPORIZATION DEVICEAugust 2021August 2025Abandon4720NoNo
16326411ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE AND ATOMIZER THEREOFAugust 2021January 2026Allow6050NoNo
17386514ADMINISTERING APPARATUS WITH DISPENSING DEVICE SYSTEM FOR DELIVERY OF COMBUSTIBLE MEDICAMENTSJuly 2021April 2025Allow4421YesNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner LE, TOBEY CHOU - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner LE, TOBEY CHOU works in Art Unit 1747 and has examined 4 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 50.0%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 47 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner LE, TOBEY CHOU's allowance rate of 50.0% places them in the 12% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is less likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by LE, TOBEY CHOU receive 2.25 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 63% 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 LE, TOBEY CHOU is 47 months. This places the examiner in the 9% 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 +66.7% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LE, TOBEY CHOU. This interview benefit is in the 98% 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, 25.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 38% 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 33.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 49% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 98% 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 6% percentile). This examiner rarely makes examiner's amendments compared to other examiners. You should expect to make all necessary claim amendments yourself through formal amendment practice.

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 6% 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

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

  • Prepare for rigorous examination: With a below-average allowance rate, ensure your application has strong written description and enablement support. Consider filing a continuation if you need to add new matter.
  • 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 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.