USPTO Examiner HUANG MICKEY NMN - Art Unit 1758

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
17253388SIZE-BASED SEPARATION METHOD FOR HIGHLY CONCENTRATING EXTRACELLULAR VESICLE IN FLUID SAMPLEDecember 2020May 2024Abandon4110NoNo
16978291METHOD FOR DETECTING ALLERGIC DISEASESNovember 2020April 2024Abandon4310NoNo
17089003Membrane Probes for Expansion MicroscopyNovember 2020September 2024Allow4711YesNo
17082370SPECIFIC MATERIALS THAT CAN BE USED FOR THE DETECTION OF AT LEAST ONE ALKALINE ELEMENTOctober 2020August 2024Allow4521YesNo
17051119MAGNETIC BEAD PURIFICATION SYSTEMOctober 2020October 2024Allow4840NoNo
17050759METHOD FOR MEASURING INTRACELLULAR POTENTIAL WITH A CAPACITANCE TYPE POTENTIAL MEASUREMENT DEVICEOctober 2020January 2025Allow5120YesNo
17077828COLUMN-BASED DEVICE FOR RETRIEVAL OF RARE CELLS BASED ON SIZE, AND USES THEREOFOctober 2020March 2023Allow2811NoNo
17073608METHOD FOR PREPARING ANALYSIS SAMPLE, ANALYSIS METHOD, AND KIT FOR PREPARING ANALYSIS SAMPLEOctober 2020September 2024Allow4730YesNo
17048997MICROFLUIDIC BOARD AND METHOD OF FORMING THE SAMEOctober 2020March 2023Allow2910YesNo
17040389HIGH-SPEED POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION ANALYSIS PLATESeptember 2020July 2024Allow4640YesNo
17040064OPTICAL REACTION WELL FOR ASSAY DEVICESeptember 2020December 2022Allow2600YesNo
17017284MOLECULE DETECTING DEVICE AND MOLECULE DETECTING METHODSeptember 2020April 2025Abandon5521NoNo
16978438MODULAR FLUIDIC CHIP AND FLUIDIC FLOW SYSTEM COMPRISING SAMESeptember 2020January 2023Allow2910YesNo
16992248BIOLOGICAL DETECTION DEVICE AND METHOD FOR TOILET WATER SOLUTIONAugust 2020October 2024Abandon5020NoNo
16984955MICROFLUIDIC PROBE HEAD WITH BARRIER PROJECTIONSAugust 2020February 2024Allow4230YesNo
16984852MICROFLUIDIC PROBE HEAD WITH ASPIRATION POSTSAugust 2020September 2024Allow4940YesNo
16932729Rapid Method of Forensic Toxicology in Post-Mortem Individuals Using Muscle Tissue TestingJuly 2020July 2024Abandon4810NoNo
16931468STRIP DETECTING APPARATUSJuly 2020October 2024Abandon5120NoNo
16634559Physical Model for Evaluation of Heat TreatmentJanuary 2020February 2024Abandon4941NoNo
16631706Method for Quantitative Analysis of Hydrogen in Porous SilicaJanuary 2020February 2024Allow4920YesNo

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 HUANG, MICKEY NMN - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner HUANG, MICKEY NMN works in Art Unit 1758 and has examined 20 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 65.0%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 47 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner HUANG, MICKEY NMN's allowance rate of 65.0% places them in the 27% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by HUANG, MICKEY NMN receive 2.05 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 50% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by HUANG, MICKEY NMN is 47 months. This places the examiner in the 10% 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 +77.8% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by HUANG, MICKEY NMN. 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, 33.3% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 73% 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.

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 51% 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.

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:

  • 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.