USPTO Examiner LU KUEN S - Art Unit 2156

Examiner LU, KUEN S - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner LU, KUEN S works in Art Unit 2156 and has examined 1,024 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 88.6%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 29 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner LU, KUEN S's allowance rate of 88.6% 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 LU, KUEN S receive 1.78 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 54% 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 LU, KUEN S is 29 months. This places the examiner in the 45% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +13.3% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LU, KUEN S. This interview benefit is in the 54% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 39.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 88% 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 20.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 18% 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.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 109.5% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 78% 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 80.9% of appeals filed. This is in the 71% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 36.8% 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, 31.3% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 24% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 7.2% of allowed cases (in the 93% 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 0.2% of allowed cases (in the 45% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may 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