USPTO Examiner SHUI MING - Art Unit 2663

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18637325METHODS FOR SAMPLING SYNTHETIC DEFECT IMAGE GENERATIONApril 2024February 2026Allow2200NoNo
18623036HAND TRACKING SYSTEM AND METHODApril 2024August 2025Allow1610NoNo
18592904METHOD FOR LASER PROCESSING AND LASER PROCESSING SYSTEMMarch 2024February 2026Allow2400NoNo
18437080AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF PHYSICAL OBJECTS USING IMMUTABLE PHYSICAL CODEFebruary 2024January 2026Allow2300YesNo
18412379IMAGE ENHANCEMENT METHOD, DEVICE, AND COMPUTER PROGRAMJanuary 2024December 2025Allow2400NoNo
18523607DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING LIGHT RECEIVING ELEMENTS AND METHOD OF OPERATING THE SAMENovember 2023October 2025Allow2240YesNo
18558475CAMERA DEVICE FOR MONITORING AND RECOGNISING ANIMALS OR PORTIONS THEREOF, AND ASSOCIATED LIVESTOCK SHEDNovember 2023November 2025Allow2500YesNo
18495268INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS FOR RECOMMENDING A DESIRED VEHICLE TOPCOAT WHEN THE BODY COLOR DOES NOT MATCHOctober 2023September 2025Allow2310YesNo
18374464DETECTION OF INAPPROPRIATE LANGUAGE AND/OR IMAGERY FOR PREVENTION OF DISPLAY ON QUICK SERVICE RESTAURANT SIGNAGESeptember 2023September 2025Allow2300YesNo
18371699BODY FLUID VOLUME ESTIMATION DEVICE, BODY FLUID VOLUME ESTIMATION METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUMSeptember 2023January 2026Allow2810NoNo
18371709BODY FLUID VOLUME ESTIMATION DEVICE, BODY FLUID VOLUME ESTIMATION METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUMSeptember 2023February 2026Allow2910NoNo
18361752AI-BASED CELL CLASSIFICATION METHOD AND SYSTEMJuly 2023December 2025Allow2800YesNo
18353417OMITTED BONE ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES FOR SURGICAL PLANNINGJuly 2023February 2026Allow3110YesNo
18216806BODY FLUID VOLUME ESTIMATION DEVICE, BODY FLUID VOLUME ESTIMATION METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUMJune 2023January 2026Allow3110YesNo
18333256CONTROL METHOD FOR TEST SYSTEM, CONTROL METHOD FOR SMEAR PREPARATION DEVICE, TEST SYSTEM, AND SMEAR PREPARATION DEVICEJune 2023June 2025Allow2400YesNo
18039008ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ASSISTANT DEVICE AND SYSTEM BASED ON DOOR IMAGE ANALYSISMay 2023September 2025Allow2810NoNo
18198970APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING AN OPTIMIZED IMPLANT POSITION USING A KINEMATIC AND INVERSE DYNAMICS MODEL AND APPLYING MOTION CAPTURE DATAMay 2023March 2026Abandon3410NoNo
17998142SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A SMART PRODUCT HANDOFF INTEGRATED PLATFORMMay 2023November 2025Allow3610YesNo
18198070REMOTE SENSING AND SOCIAL SENSING FOR FLOOD MAPPINGMay 2023February 2026Allow3320YesNo
18318190MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING APPARATUS, PHASE CORRECTING METHOD, AND IMAGING CONTROLLING METHODMay 2023November 2025Allow3010YesNo
18247892SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING ATHEROSCLEROTIC PATHOLOGICAL TISSUE TYPES IN A CORONARY ARTERY OCT IMAGE USING TRAINED ENGINESApril 2023February 2026Allow3510NoNo
18118954INTERSECT COMMAND VISION LOCATING SYSTEM AND METHODMarch 2023September 2025Allow3120YesNo
18170902VISION PROCESSING AND MODEL TRAINING METHOD, DEVICE, STORAGE MEDIUM AND PROGRAM PRODUCTFebruary 2023May 2025Allow2710NoNo
17948471VEHICLE IMAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMSeptember 2022January 2026Abandon4020NoNo
17946099DETECTION DEVICE DETECTING GAZE POINT OF USER, CONTROL METHOD THEREFOR, AND STORAGE MEDIUM STORING CONTROL PROGRAM THEREFORSeptember 2022February 2026Allow4130NoNo
17857444METHOD FOR GENERATING AND RECOGNIZING DEFORMABLE OF FIDUCIAL MARKERS BASED ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN END-TO-END MANNER AND SYSTEM THEREOFJuly 2022November 2025Allow4020YesNo
17839961COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM STORING PERSON IDENTIFICATION MACHINE LEARNING PROGRAM, PERSON IDENTIFICATION MACHINE LEARNING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUSJune 2022June 2025Allow3620YesNo
14457612TECHNOLOGIES FOR VIDEO-BASED COMMERCEAugust 2014January 2017Allow2950YesNo
14191239Device For Delivery ServiceFebruary 2014October 2017Allow4420YesNo
14153304PRICING DATA ACCORDING TO PROVENANCE-BASED USE IN A QUERYJanuary 2014July 2017Allow4220NoNo
14145811GUARANTY PROVISIONING VIA WIRELESS SERVICE PURVEYANCEDecember 2013July 2017Allow4220YesNo
14137385ATTRIBUTION MODELING USING REGRESSION ANALYSISDecember 2013October 2017Allow4630YesNo
14085560HANDLING AND PROCESSING OF MASSIVE NUMBERS OF PROCESSING INSTRUCTIONS IN REAL TIMENovember 2013March 2018Allow5210NoNo
14066580FACILITATING GUARANTY PROVISIONING FOR AN EXCHANGEOctober 2013November 2017Allow4850YesNo

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 SHUI, MING - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner SHUI, MING works in Art Unit 2663 and has examined 7 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 100.0%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 44 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner SHUI, MING's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 96% 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 SHUI, MING receive 2.86 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 83% 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 SHUI, MING is 44 months. This places the examiner in the 14% 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 +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by SHUI, MING. This interview benefit is in the 14% 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 86% 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 0.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 1% 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, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 3% 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 14.3% of allowed cases (in the 96% 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 28% percentile). This examiner issues Quayle actions less often than average. Allowances may 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:

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.
  • 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.