Examiner Daniel Y Kim has allowed 50 of 57 decided applications (88%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Daniel Y Kim maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 57 disposed applications, the allowance rate stands at 88%, with 50 applications allowed and 7 abandoned. The examiner works within a single art unit (2185). This record represents historical dispositions only and does not constitute a forecast for any pending or future application.
This pooled record aggregates all applications decided by the examiner across their assigned art unit(s) in TC 2100. The allowance rate of 88% reflects past dispositions—allowed and abandoned applications combined—and describes the examiner's historical output. Aggregate figures do not predict outcomes on individual applications and are not causal claims about prosecution strategy or examiner behavior.
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.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Daniel Y 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: 57 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