LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/MONG-SHUNE CHUNG
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Mong-Shune Chung

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 482 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Mong-Shune Chung has allowed 384 of 482 decided applications (80%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

80% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2142 · 56%AU 2144 · 95%AU 2118 · 96%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Mong-Shune Chung maintains a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 482 disposed applications, 384 were allowed, yielding an 80% allowance rate. The examiner's allowance rate across the art units ranges from 56% to 96%, reflecting variation in the record among the different art-unit assignments. This pooled figure represents applications decided over the period covered by the public record and does not include pending cases.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates decisions across multiple art units in TC 2100. The 80% allowance rate describes historical dispositions—allowed and abandoned applications—among the 482 decided cases. It is a description of the past record, not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The range (56% to 96%) shows that allowance rates differ among the examiner's individual art units; the pooled rate reflects the combined performance across all of them.

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 2142
191 APPS · 56% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

56% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 45%
DISPOSITION107 / 84 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.9 moart unit avg 30.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.4 moart unit avg 48.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility54% · art unit 57%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)95%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness86%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW74%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW34%+40 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 105 decided applications with an interview and 86 without.

ART UNIT 2144
179 APPS · 95% ALLOWANCE
95% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION170 / 9 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION10.5 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY19.7 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility18% · art unit 45%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness74% · art unit 92%
§112 — Written description & definiteness59%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW96%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW95%+1 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 67 decided applications with an interview and 112 without.

ART UNIT 2118
145 APPS · 96% ALLOWANCE
96% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION107 / 5 / 33allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.9 moart unit avg 22.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY28.4 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility29% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)99%
§103 — Obviousness74% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness62%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW97%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW95%+2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 33 decided applications with an interview and 79 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Mong-Shune Chung

  • What is Mong-Shune Chung's overall allowance rate?
    80%, based on 384 allowed applications out of 482 disposed applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    3 art units (2118, 2142, 2144) within Technology Center 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the examiner's art units?
    The allowance rate ranges from 56% to 96% across the art units with a substantial record.
  • Does this pooled rate apply to my specific application?
    No. This pooled figure describes the historical record 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 Mong-Shune Chung 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: 515 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