USPTO Examiner VO TUNG T - Art Unit 2425

Examiner VO, TUNG T - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner VO, TUNG T works in Art Unit 2425 and has examined 319 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 82.1%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 21 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner VO, TUNG T's allowance rate of 82.1% places them in the 54% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by VO, TUNG T receive 2.22 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 61% 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 VO, TUNG T is 21 months. This places the examiner in the 91% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications move through prosecution relatively quickly with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.8% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by VO, TUNG T. This interview benefit is in the 18% 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, 23.9% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 34% 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 14.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 14% 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, 70.6% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 58% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: Pre-appeal conferences show above-average effectiveness with this examiner. If you have strong arguments, a PAC request may result in favorable reconsideration.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 70.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 56% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 32.1% 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, 29.8% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 17% 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 0.6% of allowed cases (in the 62% percentile). This examiner makes examiner's amendments more often than average to place applications in condition for allowance (MPEP § 1302.04).

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 17% 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

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