LYNCH·LLP
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Ilwoo Park

TECH CENTER 2100 · 2 ART UNITS · 736 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION NOV 2024
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS

Examiner Ilwoo Park has allowed 506 of 736 decided applications (69%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

69% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2184 · 73%AU 2182 · 61%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Ilwoo Park maintains a public record across 2 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 736 disposed applications, 506 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 69%. The allowance rate across Park's art units ranges from 61% to 73%, reflecting variation in the composition and outcomes of applications handled within each art unit. This pooled figure represents the examiner's aggregate record and does not predict any individual application's outcome.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's performance across multiple art units into a single overall allowance rate. This figure describes historical outcomes—the share of decided applications that were allowed—and reflects the mix of applications, subject matter, and examiner decisions across all assigned art units. The pooled rate is not a prediction for any specific application and does not isolate the effect of any single factor or practice.

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 2184
465 APPS · 73% ALLOWANCE

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

73% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 78%
DISPOSITION340 / 125 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.1 moart unit avg 20.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.5 moart unit avg 31.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility16% · art unit 17%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)75%
§103 — Obviousness87% · art unit 75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness32%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.

WITH INTERVIEW82%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW69%+13 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 157 decided applications with an interview and 308 without.

ART UNIT 2182
271 APPS · 61% ALLOWANCE

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

61% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION166 / 105 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.4 moart unit avg 24.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.7 moart unit avg 37.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility13% · art unit 31%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)77%
§103 — Obviousness77% · art unit 76%
§112 — Written description & definiteness20%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.

WITH INTERVIEW63%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW61%+2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 38 decided applications with an interview and 233 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Ilwoo Park

  • What is Examiner Park's overall allowance rate?
    69% of Park's 736 disposed applications were allowed. This represents the pooled allowance rate across all art units assigned to this examiner.
  • How many art units does Examiner Park work in?
    Park has a public record across 2 art units within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across Park's art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 61% to 73% across Park's art units, reflecting differences in application composition and outcomes within each unit.
  • Is the 69% rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The pooled allowance rate describes Park's past record across decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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 Ilwoo Park 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: 736 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