LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/HAROLD J KIM
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Harold J Kim

TECH CENTER 2100 · 2 ART UNITS · 96 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION NOV 2007
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
80%vs 73% weighted peer average+7 pts

Examiner Harold J Kim has allowed 77 of 96 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

allowed77abandoned19pending0· pending excluded from the rate
The weighted peer average (73%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 14, 2026
AU 2182 · 93%AU 2181 · 63%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Harold J Kim maintains an 80% allowance rate across dozens of decided applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His practice spans two art units within this technology center. The allowance rate—the percentage of applications either allowed or abandoned—reflects his pooled record across these art units. Allowance rates among the individual art units range from 63% to 93%, indicating variation in outcomes across different areas of practice within TC 2100. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's decisions without attribution to any particular art unit.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates decisions across multiple art units in TC 2100 into a single allowance-rate figure. The 80% overall rate describes historical outcomes, not any prediction about a specific application. The range of 63% to 93% among individual art units reflects the diversity of practice areas covered. Pooled statistics are useful for understanding an examiner's general record but do not account for variation by art unit, technology, or application-specific facts. Always review the complete record, including per-art-unit detail, for fuller context.

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 →

// BY ART UNIT

The record, art unit by art unit.

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.

◈ PRIMARY · ART UNIT 2182
56 APPS · 93% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines data-processing methods for specific functions, and processing data by its order or content.

93% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION52 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.6 moart unit avg 24.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.6 moart unit avg 37.3 mo
ART UNIT 2181
40 APPS · 63% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines interconnection and data transfer between memory, I/O, and processing units, and program control and execution.

63% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 74%
DISPOSITION25 / 15 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.1 moart unit avg 18.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.8 moart unit avg 33.3 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Harold J Kim

  • What is Harold J Kim's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 80% across dozens of decided applications in TC 2100. This represents the percentage of applications that were allowed or abandoned (pending applications are excluded from the calculation).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Harold J Kim has a public record spanning two art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    The allowance rates range from 63% to 93% across his art units. This variation reflects differences in outcomes across the specific areas of TC 2100 in which he practices.
◈ HOW LYNCH LLP CAN HELP

Where to go next.

Lynch LLP represents applicants in patent prosecution before the USPTO. These are general resources about the firm's services — not advice about this examiner or any specific application.

Patent prosecution at Lynch LLPApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.Appeals and PTAB practiceAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.IP portfolio strategyHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Scheduling time with an attorneyFree and paid consultation options across the firm's attorneys.
◈ RESPONDING TO AN OFFICE ACTION

Strategy, not paperwork. Talk to the attorney doing the work.

Lynch LLP represents applicants in patent prosecution before the USPTO. Book a consultation to discuss your matter with the attorney who would handle it.

Book a 30-minute consultation →
METHODOLOGY & DISCLOSURES

Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Harold J 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 July 14, 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: 96 applications.

Rejection rates. Each §-rate is the share of this examiner's applications that drew at least one office-action rejection in which that statutory ground appears; applications with no rejection on record are excluded, and because grounds can co-occur the four do not sum to 100%. The art-unit figure beside each is the unweighted mean of the per-examiner rates across the art unit, published for §101 and §103 only. Beside the overall allowance rate we show a benchmark: for a single-art-unit examiner it is exactly that art unit's average, labeled “art-unit average”; for an examiner spanning several art units it is the “weighted peer average” — the per-art-unit averages, weighted by this examiner's application count in each — labeled distinctly because it is a blended figure, not any single art unit's average. Both are built from the same per-art-unit averages the panels show.

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