USPTO Examiner LO KENNETH M - Art Unit 2116

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18724994DATA MIGRATION METHOD, SYSTEM AND DEVICE FOR STORAGE SERVER, AND NON-TRANSITORY READABLE STORAGE MEDIUMJune 2024January 2026Allow1910YesNo
18600340RUNTIME DE-INTERLEAVE AND RE-INTERLEAVE OF SYSTEM MEMORYMarch 2024October 2025Allow1910YesNo
18230060NETWORK ATTACHED STORAGE (NAS) SERVER PLACEMENT IN A HETEROGENEOUS STORAGE CLUSTERAugust 2023October 2025Allow2610NoNo
18228374MANAGEMENT-SUBSYSTEM-BASED SOFTWARE RAID CONFIGURATION SYSTEMJuly 2023January 2026Allow3020YesNo
18257352MONITORING SYSTEM FOR A MOVABLE COMPONENT CONNECTED TO A STATIONARY COMPONENTJune 2023January 2026Allow3210NoNo
18315005INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM MOBILE CHAIN COMPUTINGMay 2023January 2026Allow3310YesNo
18245584NUMERICAL CONTROL CODE CONVERSION FOR DETERMINING ESTIMATED CONDITIONS OF A FINISHED THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRINTED PARTMarch 2023February 2026Abandon3510NoNo
18177107APPARATUS, METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUMMarch 2023October 2025Allow3110YesNo
18059971Memory System Implementing Write Abort Operation For Reduced Read LatencyNovember 2022January 2026Allow3830YesNo
17661084ADAPTIVE DATA ENCODING FOR MEMORY SYSTEMSApril 2022June 2023Allow1440NoNo
17639811CONTROL SYSTEM, AND CONTROL METHODMarch 2022April 2024Abandon2520NoNo
17576400System and Methods for Actively Managing Electric Power Over an Electric Power GridJanuary 2022May 2024Abandon2820NoNo
17485203APPARATUS, SYSTEM AND METHOD TO SAMPLE PAGE TABLE ENTRY METADATA BETWEEN PAGE WALKSSeptember 2021January 2026Allow5210YesNo
17483491REDUCING MEMORY POWER USAGE IN FAR MEMORYSeptember 2021October 2025Allow4910YesNo
17421025SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING DEVICES OF A RESTAURANT OR CONVENIENCE STOREJuly 2021October 2023Abandon2810NoNo
16701275METHODS OF POSITIONING COMPONENT IN DESIRED POSITION ON A BOARD, PICK AND PLACE MACHINES, AND SENSORS FOR SUCH PICK AND PLACE MACHINESDecember 2019July 2023Abandon4340NoNo
16297135SMART LIGHT SWITCH/THERMOSTAT FOR CONTROL AND ENERGY MANAGEMENTMarch 2019October 2023Abandon5671NoNo
16168890APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MONITORING SUBSTRATE PROCESSINGOctober 2018May 2022Abandon4340YesNo
15778078NUMERICAL CONTROLLER AND NUMERICAL CONTROL METHODMay 2018March 2021Abandon3420NoNo
15683966PRODUCTION SYSTEM HAVING FUNCTION OF INDICATING INSPECTION TIME FOR PRODUCTION MACHINEAugust 2017September 2018Abandon1300NoNo
14895910POWER MANAGEMENT METHOD AND POWER MANAGEMENT DEVICEDecember 2015February 2020Abandon5140YesNo
14947561MAINTAINING AN ATTRIBUTE OF A BUILDINGNovember 2015February 2021Abandon6070YesNo
14406182CRANE AND RELATED METHOD OF OPERATIONDecember 2014July 2019Abandon5520NoNo
14405477METHOD OF REGULATING A PLANT COMPRISING COGENERATING INSTALLATIONS AND THERMODYNAMIC SYSTEMS INTENDED FOR AIR CONDITIONING AND/OR HEATINGDecember 2014March 2019Abandon5120NoNo

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 LO, KENNETH M - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner LO, KENNETH M works in Art Unit 2116 and has examined 12 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 16.7%, this examiner allows applications at a lower rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 51 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner LO, KENNETH M's allowance rate of 16.7% places them in the 2% 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 LO, KENNETH M receive 2.92 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 85% 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 LO, KENNETH M is 51 months. This places the examiner in the 4% 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 +40.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LO, KENNETH M. This interview benefit is in the 87% 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, 0.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 0% 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 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 0% 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.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 100.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 90% 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 9% 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 9% 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.
  • 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.