Examiner Chong Hwa Kim has allowed 30 of 53 decided applications (57%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Examiner Chong Hwa Kim maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security), covering one art unit. Across 53 disposed applications, the examiner allowed 30 and abandoned 23, for a pooled allowance rate of 57%. This rate reflects decided applications only and does not include any pending matters. The record spans a single art unit, meaning all figures derive from one classification area within TC 2100.
A pooled record aggregates data across all art units under an examiner's jurisdiction. The allowance rate shown—57% over 53 decided applications—describes the examiner's historical outcome distribution and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Because this examiner works in only one art unit, the pooled and per-unit records are identical. Pooled figures are correlational summaries, not causal indicators of prosecution success.
These are aggregate statistics from this examiner's past public record — not predictions about any specific application. The per-art-unit figures below show how the record varies across art units. Our approach to patent prosecution →
Each section benchmarks this examiner against that art unit's average. Figures are this examiner's own public record within the art unit; the overall rate above pools them.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 15 decided applications with an interview and 38 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Chong Hwa Kim has a public record within Technology Center 2100. Statistics are computed from publicly available USPTO records, refreshed on a recurring schedule. This page's data was last updated June 25, 2026. The overall allowance rate is total allowed divided by total decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) across all art units — not an average of the per-art-unit rates; pending applications are excluded. Figures are rounded for display. Pooled sample: 53 applications.
Lynch LLP is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Examiner statistics are derived from publicly available USPTO data.
These statistics describe past examiner behavior and do not predict the outcome of any particular application. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Where this page compares an examiner's allowance rate to an art-unit average, that comparison is a factual description of the public record, not a characterization of any individual examiner's conduct or competence.
This page is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by viewing it. Full disclaimers →
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING — Sean Lynch, Partner, Lynch LLP