USPTO Examiner VU VU A - Art Unit 2823

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18067910METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DISPLAY PANEL, DISPLAY PANEL, AND DISPLAY APPARATUSDecember 2022June 2023Allow3010NoNo
17138541THERMALLY CONDUCTIVE WAFER LAYERDecember 2020November 2022Allow2321NoNo
17136319METHOD OF REDUCING RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION IN SINGULATED SEMICONDUCTOR DIEDecember 2020June 2023Allow3010NoNo
17130486LASER CLEANING METHOD AND DEVICE FOR IMPROVING UNIFORMITY OF LASER CLEANING SURFACEDecember 2020October 2023Allow3411NoNo
17125917SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGES WITHOUT DEBRISDecember 2020January 2023Allow2510NoNo
17247504Arrangement With Central Carrier And Two Opposing Layer Stacks, Component Carrier and Manufacturing MethodDecember 2020February 2023Allow2620YesNo
17117352PHOTOELECTRIC DEVICEDecember 2020January 2023Allow2510NoNo
17110837SELECTIVE MOLD PLACEMENT ON INTEGRATED CIRCUIT (IC) PACKAGES AND METHODS OF FABRICATINGDecember 2020May 2023Allow2930NoNo
17047686LASER DEVICE FOR SKIN TREATMENTOctober 2020December 2023Allow3810NoNo
17060248WIRING BOARD AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE MODULEOctober 2020January 2023Allow2810YesNo
17037676High PRF, High Efficiency Laser Diode Driver Power SupplySeptember 2020October 2023Allow3610NoNo
17043144A SURFACE-EMITTING LASER DEVICE AND LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAMESeptember 2020November 2023Allow3810NoNo
17043281DRIVING CURRENT CORRECTION METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MULTIPLE LASER DEVICES, AND LASER PROJECTORSeptember 2020December 2023Allow3810NoNo
17035664H-Bridge Integrated Laser DriverSeptember 2020November 2023Allow3710NoNo
16979606SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICESeptember 2020November 2023Allow3810NoNo
17002069FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION CHIP PACKAGE AND METHOD FOR MAKING SAMEAugust 2020August 2023Abandon3510NoNo
16991086OPTICAL MODULE, METHOD FOR CONTROLLING WAVELENGTH THEREOF, AND METHOD FOR CALIBRATION THEREOFAugust 2020November 2023Allow3910NoNo
16986343REFLECTION FILTER DEVICE AND WAVELENGTH-TUNABLE LASER DEVICEAugust 2020October 2023Allow3810NoNo
16984345WAVELENGTH-TUNABLE LASER AND OPTICAL MODULEAugust 2020October 2023Allow3810NoNo
16918995PARTICLE CAPTURE USING TRANSFER STAMPJuly 2020January 2023Allow3021NoNo
16900039Multi-Stage, Multi-Zone Substrate Positioning SystemsJune 2020January 2023Allow3120NoNo
16766424MATERIALS FOR ORGANIC ELETROLUMINESCENT DEVICESMay 2020October 2022Allow2810NoNo
16821899SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICESMarch 2020July 2021Allow1630NoNo
16596367NO MOLD SHELF PACKAGE DESIGN AND PROCESS FLOW FOR ADVANCED PACKAGE ARCHITECTURESOctober 2019October 2023Allow4830NoNo
16554789DECOUPLING LAYER TO REDUCE UNDERFILL STRESS IN SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICESAugust 2019March 2023Allow4320NoNo
16442801PACKAGE-LEVEL BACKSIDE METALLIZATION (BSM)June 2019January 2023Allow4320YesNo
16274086CHIPLET FIRST ARCHITECTURE FOR DIE TILING APPLICATIONSFebruary 2019May 2023Allow5140YesNo
15783703BOND AND RELEASE LAYER TRANSFER PROCESSOctober 2017August 2018Allow1020NoNo
15186184BOND AND RELEASE LAYER TRANSFER PROCESSJune 2016July 2017Allow1320NoNo

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 VU, VU A - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner VU, VU A works in Art Unit 2823 and has examined 29 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 96.6%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 34 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner VU, VU A's allowance rate of 96.6% places them in the 86% 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 VU, VU A receive 1.59 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 27% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by VU, VU A is 34 months. This places the examiner in the 44% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +4.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by VU, VU A. This interview benefit is in the 28% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide a below-average benefit with this examiner.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 35.7% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 81% 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 72.7% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 94% 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.

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 4% 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 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 25% 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 32% 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:

  • 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.

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.