Examiner Paul Kim has allowed 399 of 645 decided applications (62%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Paul Kim has a pooled allowance rate of 62% across 645 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His record spans four art units: 2152, 2161, 2166, and 2169. Of the 669 total applications in his record, 399 were allowed and 246 were abandoned. The allowance rate varies across these art units, ranging from 37% to 96%. This pooled figure represents the examiner's overall historical record across all four units combined and does not apply uniformly to any single art unit.
A pooled record aggregates statistics from multiple art units into a single profile. The 62% allowance rate describes past dispositions across all four units combined and reflects historical patterns, not predictions about individual applications. Art units may have different technical scopes, examination practices, and application populations, so a pooled figure masks this variation. The range (37% to 96%) shows that allowance rates differ substantially among the examiner's units. Historical data informs context but does not forecast outcomes.
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.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 172 decided applications with an interview and 174 without.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 127 decided applications with an interview and 67 without.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 28 decided applications with an interview and 23 without.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Paul 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: 669 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