USPTO Examiner WHITE KIA XIONG - Art Unit 3774

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18602873EXPANDABLE FRAME FOR MEDICAL DEVICEMarch 2024April 2025Allow1320NoNo
18434290HEART VALVE THAT INCLUDES COATING MATERIALFebruary 2024July 2025Allow1730NoNo
17777203CUSTOMIZED GUIDE, AND APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAMEMay 2022January 2026Abandon4501NoNo
17691689Delivery System Radiopaque (RO) Markers For TAVR Commissure AlignmentMarch 2022August 2025Allow4120YesNo
17589817Launcher for Introduction of A Medical DeviceJanuary 2022September 2025Abandon4401NoNo
17577494METHOD USING CUSTOM PATIENT SPECIFIC IMPLANTS TO DECREASE THE NATURAL RATE OF AGING SITE SPECIFIC REGIONS OF THE FACIAL SKELETONJanuary 2022May 2025Abandon4010NoNo
17567616ARTIFICIAL ARTICULATION HAVING STABLE FIXING MEANS FOR UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTYJanuary 2022February 2025Abandon3720NoNo
17457278HAPTIC MANAGEMENT FOR DELIVERY OF INTRAOCULAR IMPLANTSDecember 2021June 2025Allow4220YesNo
17613512SLEEVE ELEMENT TO BE PLACED ON A NECK OF A PROSTHETIC HIP OR SHOULDER IMPLANTNovember 2021February 2026Abandon5130NoNo
17609231TEMPORARY SYNTHETIC CARRIER FOR CORNEAL TISSUE INSERTION AND TISSUE DELIVERYNovember 2021June 2025Allow4420NoNo
17496670METHOD OF ASSEMBLING A PROSTHETIC HEART VALVEOctober 2021January 2025Allow3910NoNo
17490931DEVICES AND METHODS FOR FIXATION AGAINST TISSUESeptember 2021May 2024Allow3220YesNo
17478764DELIVERY APPARATUS FOR A PROSTHETIC VALVESeptember 2021June 2025Allow4530YesNo
17466331COMMISSURE ATTACHMENT FOR PROSTHETIC HEART VALVESeptember 2021June 2025Allow4520YesYes
17432228GLENOID BASEPLATE AND IMPLANT ASSEMBLIESAugust 2021April 2025Allow4420NoNo
17397289HEART VALVE SEALING DEVICES AND DELIVERY DEVICES THEREFORAugust 2021October 2025Allow5020YesNo
17428601Anchored Leaflet Device And Methods For Transcatheter Valve RepairAugust 2021October 2024Abandon3910NoNo
17390762GUIDE WIRE APPARATUSES AND METHODSJuly 2021May 2025Allow4510NoNo
17389332HEART VALVE PROSTHESISJuly 2021August 2025Allow4920YesNo
17426921CAROTID ARTERY STENTING SYSTEMS AND METHODSJuly 2021September 2025Allow4930YesNo
17365418METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PACKAGING AND PREPARING A PROSTHETIC HEART VALVE AND ASSOCIATED DELIVERY SYSTEMJuly 2021March 2026Abandon5630NoNo
17358445ADJUSTABLE BENDABLE SHEATH AND STENT DELIVERY DEVICEJune 2021May 2025Abandon4620NoNo
17337711MECHANICALLY EXPANDABLE PROSTHETIC HEART VALVE AND DELIVERY APPARATUSJune 2021August 2024Allow3810NoNo
17323259Heart Valve Repair Devices and MethodsMay 2021June 2025Abandon4910NoNo
17241577VALVE DIAMETER AND FORCE MONITORING OF A PROSTHETIC HEART VALVEApril 2021March 2025Allow4721NoNo
17285867METHOD FOR USER-SIDE VOLUME ADAPTATION OF A BREAST PROSTHESISApril 2021October 2024Abandon4220NoNo
17284561Accommodative Functionality for Artificial Capsule PlatformApril 2021May 2024Abandon3710NoNo
17284578Intraocular Artificial Lens CapsuleApril 2021August 2025Allow5240NoNo
17249755MEDICAL DEVICE DELIVERYMarch 2021August 2025Allow5340YesNo
17195249METHODS OF DELIVERING A FLEXIBLE ANNULOPLASTY RINGMarch 2021March 2026Allow6020NoNo
17268034RELEASABLE KNOTS FOR MEDICAL DEVICE DELIVERYFebruary 2021October 2025Allow5640YesNo
17155444INTERNAL BRACE FOR TISSUE REPAIRS AND REINFORCEMENTSJanuary 2021November 2024Abandon4620NoNo
17104422Intraocular Device Responsive to CommandsNovember 2020September 2025Abandon5840NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner WHITE, KIA XIONG.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
1
Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(100.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
99.8%
Higher than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

Filing a Notice of Appeal can sometimes lead to allowance even before the appeal is fully briefed or decided by the PTAB. This occurs when the examiner or their supervisor reconsiders the rejection during the mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) after the appeal is filed.

In this dataset, 100.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the top 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is particularly effective here. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Strategic Recommendations

Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Examiner WHITE, KIA XIONG - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner WHITE, KIA XIONG works in Art Unit 3774 and has examined 26 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 65.4%, this examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 46 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner WHITE, KIA XIONG's allowance rate of 65.4% places them in the 26% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has a below-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by WHITE, KIA XIONG receive 2.23 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 62% 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 WHITE, KIA XIONG is 46 months. This places the examiner in the 11% 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 +52.9% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by WHITE, KIA XIONG. This interview benefit is in the 94% 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, 35.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 78% 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 46.2% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 70% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows above-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. If your amendments clearly overcome the rejections and do not raise new issues, consider filing after-final amendments before resorting to an RCE.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 0.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 22% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show limited success with this examiner compared to others. While still worth considering, be prepared to proceed with a full appeal brief if the PAC does not result in favorable action.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 100.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 99% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1207.01, all appeals must go through a mandatory appeal conference. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration even before you file an Appeal Brief.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 46% 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 48% 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.
  • 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.
  • Appeal filing as negotiation tool: This examiner frequently reconsiders rejections during the appeal process. Filing a Notice of Appeal may prompt favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

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.