LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/KENNETH S KIM
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Kenneth S Kim

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 830 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION SEP 2016
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Kenneth S Kim has allowed 684 of 830 decided applications (82%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

82% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2111 · 80%AU 2185 · 95%AU 2183 · 88%AU 2181 · 85%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Kenneth S Kim maintains a pooled allowance rate of 82% across 830 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His record spans four art units: 2111, 2181, 2183, and 2185. Of the 830 decided applications, 684 were allowed and 146 were abandoned. The allowance rate ranges from 80% to 95% across these art units, reflecting variation in outcomes within TC 2100. This pooled figure represents the examiner's aggregate record and describes past disposition only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units into a single overall statistic. The 82% allowance rate shown here is the mean outcome across all four units Kim has handled in TC 2100. This aggregate figure describes the historical proportion of applications that were allowed or abandoned relative to all decided cases. It is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome, nor does it indicate how Kim will examine any particular case. Applicants review pooled records for context only.

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 2111
654 APPS · 80% ALLOWANCE
80% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 80%
DISPOSITION520 / 134 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.8 moart unit avg 20.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.9 moart unit avg 31.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility3% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)77%
§103 — Obviousness25% · art unit 72%
§112 — Written description & definiteness94%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW80%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW79%+1 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 25 decided applications with an interview and 629 without.

ART UNIT 2185
138 APPS · 95% ALLOWANCE
95% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION131 / 7 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.7 moart unit avg 21.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.1 moart unit avg 36.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0% · art unit 19%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)68%
§103 — Obviousness21% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness94%
ART UNIT 2183
25 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines program control and execution.

88% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION22 / 3 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION7.3 moart unit avg 25 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY15.9 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
ART UNIT 2181
13 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

85% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 74%
DISPOSITION11 / 2 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.2 moart unit avg 18.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY28.3 moart unit avg 33.3 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kenneth S Kim

  • What is Kenneth S Kim's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 82%, based on 684 allowed applications and 146 abandoned applications among 830 total disposed cases across all four art units.
  • How many art units has Kenneth S Kim worked in?
    Kim has a substantial record in four art units within TC 2100: 2111, 2181, 2183, and 2185.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across his art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 80% to 95% across Kim's art units, indicating variation in outcomes within Technology Center 2100.
  • What does this pooled record mean for my application?
    The pooled record describes Kim's past outcomes in aggregate. It is historical data and is not a prediction of the outcome for any specific pending application.
◈ 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 Kenneth S 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: 830 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