USPTO Examiner LE UYEN T - Art Unit 2156

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
19074467ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND APPLICATION SEARCH METHOD THEREOFMarch 2025February 2026Allow1100NoNo
18824141Methods and Apparatus for Efficient Media IndexingSeptember 2024October 2025Allow1310NoNo
18757720LOCK-FREE READ ACCESS TO HASH MAP DATA STRUCTURESJune 2024September 2025Allow1510NoNo
18734974METHOD, DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM FOR PROCESSING DATA TABLEJune 2024February 2026Allow2030NoNo
18680128DATA MIGRATION IN A DISTRIBUTIVE FILE SYSTEMMay 2024December 2025Allow1810NoNo
18677681AUTOMATIC EVOLUTION OF DYNAMIC TABLES BASED ON OBJECT TRACKINGMay 2024March 2026Allow2110NoNo
18658616METHOD, DEVICE, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR GENERATING OBJECT IDENTIFIERMay 2024February 2026Allow2110NoNo
18652579SHARE REPLICATION BETWEEN REMOTE DEPLOYMENTSMay 2024December 2025Allow1910YesNo
18625029SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RECORDING DATA REPRESENTING MULTIPLE INTERACTIONSApril 2024October 2025Allow1810NoNo
18430048SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SYNCHRONIZING NON-FUNGIBLE TOKEN LEDGERSFebruary 2024December 2025Abandon2340YesNo
18428229RECOMMENDING MEDIA PROGRAMS BASED ON MEDIA PROGRAM POPULARITYJanuary 2024November 2025Abandon2110NoNo
18523701GRAPH PROCESSING SYSTEMNovember 2023August 2025Allow2120NoNo
18520891GRAPH OPERATIONS ENGINE FOR TENANT MANAGEMENT IN A MULTI-TENANT SYSTEMNovember 2023October 2025Allow2320YesNo
18480989MACHINE LEARNING-BASED METHODS FOR MATCHING SKILLS TO ROLES AND COURSESOctober 2023March 2026Abandon3010NoNo
18552637HARDWARE-ACCELERATED HOMOMORPHIC ENCRYPTION IN MARKETPLACE PLATFORMSSeptember 2023March 2026Allow2930YesNo
18473037MEDIA AGNOSTIC CONTENT ACCESS MANAGEMENTSeptember 2023December 2025Allow2640YesNo
18281686TIME-SERIES DATA PROCESSING METHODSeptember 2023November 2025Abandon2720YesNo
18220493METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PERSONALIZED SCREEN CONTENT OPTIMIZATIONJuly 2023December 2025Allow2930NoNo
18337891Al-POWERED CONCEPT-DRIVEN VISUALIZATION AUTHORINGJune 2023December 2025Allow3030YesNo
18333788Persona Based Modeling SystemJune 2023September 2025Allow2720YesNo
18143789DATA STORAGE METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DATA STORAGEMay 2023January 2026Allow3330YesNo
18139116DASHBOARDS FOR P2P MESH NETWORKS TO FACILITATE DEVICE MANAGEMENTApril 2023July 2025Allow2720YesNo
18095818OBJECT STORAGE-BASED INDEXING SYSTEMS AND METHODJanuary 2023December 2025Abandon3630NoNo
18146358DYNAMIC INTERNAL SERVICE/FUNCTION DISCOVERY IN TELECOM CLOUD ARCHITECTUREDecember 2022March 2026Allow3930NoNo
18067683STABILIZER INSTRUMENT EQUALITY DETERMINATIONDecember 2022February 2026Allow3810YesNo
17986029OFFLOADING DATA INTERFACING METHOD BETWEEN DBMS STORAGE ENGINE AND COMPUTATIONAL STORAGE DEVICENovember 2022November 2025Allow3630NoNo
16447916DATA SEARCH METHOD, DATA SEARCH APPARATUS, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM FOR DATA SEARCHJune 2019December 2020Allow1800NoNo
16416358ROUTER BASED QUERY RESULTSMay 2019April 2021Allow2320NoNo
16273063USER CREATED CONTENT REFERRAL AND SEARCHFebruary 2019September 2022Abandon4440NoNo
16156632MAINTAINING FILE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS USING COGNITIVE COMPUTINGOctober 2018December 2020Allow2610YesNo
15874453INFERENTIAL USER MATCHING SYSTEMJanuary 2018March 2020Allow2610NoNo
15857770RADIX SORT ACCELERATION USING CUSTOM ASICDecember 2017February 2020Allow2610NoNo
15843188COGNITIVE MOBILE APPLICATION DESIGN SEARCH ENGINE INCLUDING A KEYWORD SEARCHDecember 2017April 2020Allow2830NoNo
15841922RESULTS FROM SEARCH PROVIDERS USING A BROWSING-TIME RELEVANCY FACTORDecember 2017March 2020Allow2710NoNo
15463751Search Result Ranking Based on Post Classifiers on Online Social NetworksMarch 2017May 2020Allow3720YesYes
14512568SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION DISCOVERY AND RETRIEVALOctober 2014July 2015Allow3300YesNo
14509324USING SMART PUSH TO RETRIEVE SEARCH RESULTS BASED ON A SET PERIOD OF TIME AND A SET KEYWORD WHEN THE SET KEYWORD FALLS WITHIN TOP POPULAR SEARCH RANKING DURING THE SET TIME PERIODOctober 2014September 2015Allow1110NoNo
14328970CONTENT STORAGE MAPPINGJuly 2014August 2015Allow1310NoNo
14030164CLASSIFYING AND MONITORING DATABASE OPERATIONS BASED ON A COST OF RECOVERYSeptember 2013August 2015Allow2310YesNo
13964207CONTENT STORAGE MAPPINGAugust 2013June 2014Allow1010NoNo
13880198COMPUTER, CONTROL METHOD OF COMPUTER, AND RECORDING MEDIUMJuly 2013July 2015Allow2710NoNo
13648451USING SMART PUSH TO RETRIEVE SEARCH RESULTS BASED ON A SET PERIOD OF TIME AND A SET KEYWORD WHEN THE SET KEYWORD FALLS WITHIN TOP POPULAR SEARCH RANKING DURING THE SET TIME PERIODOctober 2012July 2014Allow2100NoNo
13648587HIGH PERFORMANCE SECURE DATA ACCESS IN A PARALLEL PROCESSING SYSTEMOctober 2012August 2014Allow2310YesNo
13648658GENERATING ENUMERATED INFORMATION IN WHICH A PLURALITY OF FILES ARE ENUMERATED IN A SEQUENTIAL MEDIUMOctober 2012December 2014Allow2610YesNo
13448511CONTENT STORAGE MAPPINGApril 2012May 2013Allow1310NoNo
13363466DETECTING STATISTICAL VARIATION FROM UNCLASSIFIED PROCESS LOGFebruary 2012May 2013Allow1500NoNo
13167262HIGH AVAILABILITY DATABASE SYSTEMS AND METHODSJune 2011October 2013Allow2820YesNo
13000393FILE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMDecember 2010March 2013Allow2710YesNo
12974403SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SERVING SEARCH RESULTS OF TEXTUAL DATA IN RESPONSE TO A QUERY AS IT IS TYPEDDecember 2010December 2012Allow2410NoNo
12779894CONTENT SEARCH SYSTEM INCLUDING MULTIPLE DETERMINISTIC FINITE AUTOMATON ENGINES HAVING SHARED MEMORY RESOURCESMay 2010August 2014Allow5120NoNo
12779726Scalable, Concurrent Resizing Of Hash TablesMay 2010March 2014Allow4620YesNo
12779727METHOD FOR IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HASH-BASED DATA STRUCTURESMay 2010March 2014Allow4620NoNo
12606260CONTENT STORAGE MAPPING METHOD AND SYSTEMOctober 2009March 2012Allow2910NoNo
12426914DATA TAG CREATION FROM A PHYSICAL ITEM DATA RECORD TO BE ATTACHED TO A PHYSICAL ITEMApril 2009March 2011Allow2310NoNo
12396434APPARATUS AND METHODS OF RECONCILING DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF AN ORDERED LISTMarch 2009August 2013Allow5420NoYes
12351857SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PARSING A TEXT FILEJanuary 2009December 2011Allow3510NoNo
12345391ABSTRACT QUERY BUILDING WITH SELECTABILITY OF AGGREGATION OPERATIONS AND GROUPINGDecember 2008December 2011Allow3520NoNo
12336565INTEGRATED SEARCH ENGINE DEVICES THAT UTILIZE SPM-LINKED BIT MAPS TO REDUCE HANDLE MEMORY DUPLICATION AND METHODS OF OPERATING SAMEDecember 2008October 2011Allow3410NoNo
12208003METHOD FOR USING AN OTP STORAGE DEVICESeptember 2008August 2011Allow3610NoNo
12198365IDENTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION OF COMMON CLUSTER FILES RESIDING ON NODES IN A CLUSTERAugust 2008December 2010Allow2800NoNo
12166398METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR OPTIMIZATION IN WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSJuly 2008May 2011Allow3510NoNo
12147384TIME BASED FILE SYSTEM FOR CONTINUOUS DATA PROTECTIONJune 2008March 2011Allow3210NoNo
12133811DOCUMENT SEARCH METHOD AND DOCUMENT SEARCH APPARATUS THAT USE A COMBINATION OF INDEX-TYPE SEARCH AND SCAN-TYPE SEARCHJune 2008March 2011Allow3310NoNo
12120211COMBINATION OF COLLABORATIVE FILTERING AND CLIPRANK FOR PERSONALIZED MEDIA CONTENT RECOMMENDATIONMay 2008April 2011Allow3520NoNo
12120209CLIPRANK: RANKING MEDIA CONTENT USING THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH END USERSMay 2008April 2011Allow3520NoNo
12112211INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, SYSTEM, AND METHOD FOR MANAGING DOCUMENTS USED IN AN ORGANIZATIONApril 2008November 2010Allow3010NoNo
12103119DATA RETRIEVAL AND DATA FEED GENERATION FROM DATA SOURCESApril 2008July 2012Allow5140YesYes
11933396METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR REPLACING DATA IN A STRUCTURED DESIGN TEMPLATEOctober 2007February 2011Allow3910NoNo
11843465DATA SUBSCRIPTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMAugust 2007June 2015Allow6040YesYes
11838829ANNOTATION AND PUBLICATION FRAMEWORKAugust 2007May 2011Allow4510NoNo
11671363ANNOTATING LINKS IN A DOCUMENT BASED ON THE RANKS OF DOCUMENTS POINTED TO BY THE LINKSFebruary 2007June 2010Allow4120NoNo
11620828METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR STORING AND ACCESSING DATA RECORDS ON SOLID STATE DISKSJanuary 2007November 2010Allow4610NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner LE, UYEN T.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
1
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
4.6%
Lower than average

What This Means

With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
4
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(25.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
3
(75.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
34.3%
Lower than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

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.

Strategic Recommendations

Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.

Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner LE, UYEN T - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner LE, UYEN T works in Art Unit 2156 and has examined 46 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 97.8%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 30 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner LE, UYEN T's allowance rate of 97.8% places them in the 89% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by LE, UYEN T receive 1.37 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 20% 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 LE, UYEN T is 30 months. This places the examiner in the 59% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +2.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LE, UYEN T. This interview benefit is in the 24% percentile among all examiners. Note: Interviews show limited statistical benefit with this examiner compared to others, though they may still be valuable for clarifying issues.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 37.5% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 85% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 53.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 80% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 200.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 94% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. Before filing a full appeal brief, strongly consider requesting a PAC. The PAC provides an opportunity for the examiner and supervisory personnel to reconsider the rejection before the case proceeds to the PTAB.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 80.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 72% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 75.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows above-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. The mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) provides an opportunity for reconsideration.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 66.7% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 72% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions show above-average success regarding this examiner's actions. Petitionable matters include restriction requirements (MPEP § 1002.02(c)(2)) and various procedural issues.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 2.2% of allowed cases (in the 75% 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 12% 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:

  • Consider after-final amendments: This examiner frequently enters after-final amendments. If you can clearly overcome rejections with claim amendments, file an after-final amendment before resorting to an RCE.
  • RCEs are effective: This examiner has a high allowance rate after RCE compared to others. If you receive a final rejection and have substantive amendments or arguments, an RCE is likely to be successful.
  • Request pre-appeal conferences: PACs are highly effective with this examiner. Before filing a full appeal brief, request a PAC to potentially resolve issues without full PTAB review.
  • Examiner cooperation: This examiner frequently makes examiner's amendments to place applications in condition for allowance. If you are close to allowance, the examiner may help finalize the claims.

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.