USPTO Examiner BUI PHO PASCAL M - Art Unit 3798

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
13219589IMAGE CAPTURE UNIT AND METHODS OF FABRICATING A LENS ARRAY BLOCK UTILIZING ELECTROLYSISAugust 2011November 2011Allow201YesNo
12828567IMAGE READER PERFORMING IMAGE CORRECTION AT THE PIXEL LEVELJuly 2010August 2012Allow2500NoNo
12710582MEASURING APPARATUS AND MEASURING METHOD FOR MEASURING AXIS TILT OF SHAFT OF MOTOR FOR POLYGON MIRRORFebruary 2010May 2012Allow2710NoNo
12648378CONTACT IMAGE SENSOR MODULE WITH WEDGE-SHAPED GLASS PLATE FOR GUIDING LIGHTDecember 2009June 2012Allow3010NoNo
12560675DISPLAY DEVICE EMITTING A LIGHT FLUX AND MOBILE APPARATUS INCLUDING THE DISPLAY DEVICESeptember 2009May 2012Allow3210NoNo
12547632SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ADJUSTING LIGHT SOURCES IN MEASUREMENT OF A SURFACE IMAGEAugust 2009September 2012Allow3710NoNo
12487281A PHOTODETECTOR AMPLIFIER CIRCUIT FOR CONTROLLING AN ON STATE OR AN OFF STATE OF AN OUTPUT TRANSISTORJune 2009March 2012Allow3310NoNo
12118683LUMINOUS INTENSITY LEVEL INDICATING DEVICEMay 2008April 2010Allow2310YesNo
12109080PHOTONIC PROXIMITY SENSOR AND SCALABLE PHOTONIC SENSING SYSTEMApril 2008June 2011Allow3820NoNo
12150281OPTICAL UNIT, SOLID-STATE IMAGE SENSING DEVICE WITH POSITION ADJUSTING SECTION AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS COMPRISING SAMEApril 2008January 2011Allow3330NoNo
11971178METHOD FOR CALIBRATING FOCUS LEVEL ON A LIGHT SCRIBE DISCJanuary 2008January 2011Allow3701NoNo
11925742LENS ARRAY BLOCK FOR IMAGE CAPTURING UNIT AND METHODS OF FABRICATIONOctober 2007April 2011Allow4222NoNo
11762192OPTICAL SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE HAVING A SHIELD WIRE AND OPTICAL PICKUP DEVICE HAVING A SHIELD WIREJune 2007January 2009Allow1910NoNo
11730513PROJECTOR WITH LAMP UNIT HAVING A U-SHAPED INSERTION FRAMEApril 2007February 2010Allow3500YesNo
11689948IMAGER SYSTEM FOR AN AUTOMATED MICROSCOPEMarch 2007May 2009Allow2510NoNo
11716969PROJECTION APPARATUS AND COVER GLASS ATTACHING STRUCTUREMarch 2007June 2010Allow3910NoNo
11713489OPTICAL PICKUP APPARATUS WHICH RECORDS AND/OR REPRODUCES INFORMATION USING DIFFERENT TYPES OF OPTICAL INFORMATION RECORDING MEDIUMSMarch 2007October 2008Allow2000NoNo
11598191VIDEO IMAGE CAPTURE DEVICENovember 2006April 2008Allow1700NoNo
11593161POSITION DETECTION SYSTEMNovember 2006March 2008Allow1700NoNo
10599890DETECTION DEVICE COMPRISING A PARABOLIC MIRROR AND USE OF SAID DEVICE IN AN OVERFLIGHT MACHINEOctober 2006February 2008Allow1600NoNo
11534779A SELF-CENTERING HUB FOR TIMING DISCS OF ENCODERS, STEPPING MOTORS OR SPINNING ROLLER DRIVESSeptember 2006October 2008Allow2500NoNo
11474458MULTIMODE OPTICAL TRANSMISSION APPARATUS AND MULTIMODE OPTICAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEMJune 2006August 2008Allow2520NoNo
10562686BEVELED ERGONOMIC IMAGE RECORDER WITH BENT READING REGISTERSApril 2006August 2008Allow3120NoNo
11378291ELECTRONIC APPARATUS WITH LIGHT-SHIELDING PLATE INTERPOSED BETWEEN LIGHT GUIDESMarch 2006August 2007Allow1600NoNo
11377080METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR HIGH-THROUGHPUT INSPECTION OF LARGE FLAT PATTERNED MEDIA USING DYNAMICALLY PROGRAMMABLE OPTICAL SPATIAL FILTERINGMarch 2006October 2006Allow700NoNo
11369287REFLECTIVE ENCODER WITH THREE-DIMENSIONAL CODE CARRIERMarch 2006December 2007Allow2120NoNo
11023233OPTOELECTRONIC POSITION DETERMINATION SYSTEMDecember 2004October 2009Allow5720NoYes
10514287DUAL-MODE CMOS IMAGING SENSOR WITH SUPPORTING LEDNovember 2004September 2007Allow3430NoNo
10979592LIST MODE MULTICHANNEL ANALYZERNovember 2004June 2007Allow3120YesNo
10954188COMPLEMENTARY METAL OXIDE SEMICONDUCTOR IMAGE SENSOR HAVING CROSS TALK PREVENTION AND METHOD FOR FABRICATING THE SAMEOctober 2004June 2009Allow5790NoNo
10920187SOLID-STATE IMAGING ELEMENT AND IMAGING DEVICE WITH DYNAMICALLY ADJUSTABLE SENSITIVITIES AND METHOD THEREOFAugust 2004February 2007Allow3020NoNo
10505182METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DETECTING THE OPENING ANGLE OF THE SHUTTER OF AN ADJUSTABLE ROTATING SHUTTER IN A FILM CAMERAAugust 2004May 2007Allow3310NoNo
10710708SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DETECTING DEFECTS IN A LIGHT-MANAGEMENT FILMJuly 2004October 2006Allow2720NoNo
10476207METHOD AND DEVICE FOR EVALUATING A PARAMETER OF A MOVING OBJECTMay 2004November 2005Allow2500NoNo
10813503NEAR-FIELD SCANNING OPTICAL MICROSCOPE FOR LASER MACHINING OF MICRO- AND NANO- STRUCTURESMarch 2004January 2006Allow2100NoNo
10767600FIBER OPTIC-BASED PROBE FOR USE IN SALTWATER AND SIMILARLY CONDUCTIVE MEDIA AS FOUND IN UNENCLOSED NATURAL ENVIRONMENTSJanuary 2004September 2006Allow3130NoNo
10644701METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PRECISION COUNTING AND TRACKING OF SIGNATURES MOVING BETWEEN A GRIPPER CONVEYOR AND A STACKER INFEEDAugust 2003September 2005Allow2500NoNo
10396760METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR HIGH-THROUGHPUT INSPECTION OF LARGE FLAT PATTERNED MEDIA USING DYNAMICALLY PROGRAMMABLE OPTICAL SPATIAL FILTERINGMarch 2003December 2005Allow3311NoNo

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner BUI PHO, PASCAL M.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
1
Examiner Affirmed
1
(100.0%)
Examiner Reversed
0
(0.0%)
Reversal Percentile
21.3%
Lower than average

What This Means

With a 0.0% reversal rate, the PTAB affirms the examiner's rejections in the vast majority of cases. This reversal rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that appeals face significant challenges here.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
1
Allowed After Appeal Filing
0
(0.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
1
(100.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
11.3%
Lower 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, 0.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is in the bottom 25% across the USPTO, indicating that filing appeals is less effective here than in most other areas.

Strategic Recommendations

Appeals to PTAB face challenges. Ensure your case has strong merit before committing to full Board review.

Filing a Notice of Appeal shows limited benefit. Consider other strategies like interviews or amendments before appealing.

Examiner BUI PHO, PASCAL M - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner BUI PHO, PASCAL M works in Art Unit 3798 and has examined 38 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 30 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner BUI PHO, PASCAL M's allowance rate of 100.0% places them in the 100% 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 BUI PHO, PASCAL M receive 1.24 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 14% 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 BUI PHO, PASCAL M is 30 months. This places the examiner in the 62% percentile for prosecution speed. Prosecution timelines are slightly faster than average with this examiner.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a +0.0% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by BUI PHO, PASCAL M. 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, 40.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 91% 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 33.3% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 52% 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 24% 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 50.0% of appeals filed. This is in the 22% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: This examiner rarely withdraws rejections during the appeal process compared to other examiners. If you file an appeal, be prepared to fully prosecute it to a PTAB decision. Per MPEP § 1207, the examiner will prepare an Examiner's Answer maintaining the rejections.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 18.4% of allowed cases (in the 98% 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 21.1% of allowed cases (in the 95% percentile). Per MPEP § 714.14, a Quayle action indicates that all claims are allowable but formal matters remain. This examiner frequently uses Quayle actions compared to other examiners, which is a positive indicator that once substantive issues are resolved, allowance follows quickly.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • 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.
  • 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.