USPTO Examiner LE KHOA TAN - Art Unit 3771

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18693700AUTOMATED FLUID DISPENSER WITH DRIVER AND DISPOSABLE PROBEMarch 2024November 2024Allow810NoNo
18194283AUTOMATED ROTATION OF A NEEDLE IN A COMPUTER-ASSISTED SYSTEMMarch 2023April 2025Allow2410YesNo
18177184POWERED SURGICAL TOOL WITH TRANSMISSIONMarch 2023April 2025Allow2600YesNo
18061779SCALPEL GUIDEDecember 2022March 2025Allow2700NoNo
18059375MEDICAL NEEDLENovember 2022June 2025Allow3110NoNo
17928130DEVICES AND METHODS FOR REMOVING MATERIAL FROM A PATIENTNovember 2022June 2025Allow3010NoNo
17922863SKIN TREATMENT SYSTEMNovember 2022December 2024Allow2500NoNo
18047974CONTROLLED SUTURE TENSIONINGOctober 2022June 2025Allow3110NoNo
17918865AUTOMATED ROTATION OF A NEEDLE IN A COMPUTER-ASSISTED SYSTEMOctober 2022April 2025Allow3010YesNo
17963159OBESITY TREATMENT DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODSOctober 2022June 2025Abandon3210NoNo
17961217TENDON REPAIR SYSTEMOctober 2022February 2025Allow2810YesNo
17957973CATHETER HAVING A SPIRAL DRIVE SHAFTSeptember 2022October 2024Allow2500NoNo
17949286DRIVE MECHANISMS FOR SURGICAL INSTRUMENTSSeptember 2022June 2025Allow3310NoNo
17932027ANASTOMOTIC COUPLERSeptember 2022November 2024Allow2600NoNo
17944466SURGICAL ROBOTSeptember 2022February 2025Allow2900NoNo
17910734SURGICAL MARKING GUIDE AND METHODS OF USESeptember 2022May 2025Abandon3210NoNo
17805450GUIDE WIRE SYSTEMJune 2022January 2025Allow3110YesNo
17661241CRANIAL ACCESS DEVICEApril 2022May 2025Allow3620NoNo
17769262MEDICAL DEVICEApril 2022April 2025Abandon3610NoNo
17766991IN-PLANE ROTATION CANNULAApril 2022April 2025Allow3620YesNo
17679665ROBOTIC ASSISTED SYSTEM FOR OPHTHALMIC SURGERYFebruary 2022October 2024Allow3110NoNo
17562219OBESITY TREATMENT DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODSDecember 2021February 2025Abandon3810NoNo
17528897TISSUE ANCHOR HANDLING SYSTEMS AND METHODSNovember 2021June 2024Allow3100NoNo
17519707CUTTING APPARATUSNovember 2021September 2024Allow3410NoNo
17514421Vitrector Cutting Device with Distal Illumination ModuleOctober 2021January 2025Abandon3810NoNo
17508599ORAL HYGIENE DEVICE MEMBEROctober 2021December 2024Abandon3810NoNo
17300692Scalpel with lightingOctober 2021November 2024Abandon3810NoNo
17434817WOUND CLOSURE DEVICEAugust 2021May 2025Allow4530YesNo
17427067CARTRIDGE, AND TREATMENT DEVICE FOR ENDOSCOPE COMPRISING SAMEJuly 2021March 2025Abandon4310NoNo
17304571SURGICAL PROBES FOR TISSUE RESECTION WITH ROBOTIC ARMSJune 2021May 2025Allow4720YesNo

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 LE, KHOA TAN - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner LE, KHOA TAN works in Art Unit 3771 and has examined 29 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 72.4%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 31 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner LE, KHOA TAN's allowance rate of 72.4% places them in the 28% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by LE, KHOA TAN receive 0.93 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 10% 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, KHOA TAN is 31 months. This places the examiner in the 38% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly slower than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +38.1% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by LE, KHOA TAN. This interview benefit is in the 88% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner and should be strongly considered as a prosecution strategy. Per MPEP § 713.10, interviews are available at any time before the Notice of Allowance is mailed or jurisdiction transfers to the PTAB.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 50.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 98% 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 100.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 100% 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, 200.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 100% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 41% percentile). This examiner makes examiner's amendments less often than average. You may need to make most claim amendments yourself.

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 41% 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:

  • Prioritize examiner interviews: Interviews are highly effective with this examiner. Request an interview after the first office action to clarify issues and potentially expedite allowance.
  • 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.