LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/ALBERT K SHIH
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Albert K Shih

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 137 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION APR 2017
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
83%vs 76% art-unit average+7 pts
higher than about 52% of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2411
AU avg 76%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2411; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Albert K Shih has allowed 114 of 137 decided applications.

114 allowed
23 abandoned
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Albert K Shih maintains a pooled allowance rate of 83% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This record spans a single art unit. The allowance rate reflects the share of decided applications—those allowed or abandoned—in the examiner's public record. The 83% figure is calculated from all decided applications pooled across the examiner's art units and represents past outcomes only, without prediction of results in any individual case.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units (or a single unit, as here) to show overall historical performance. The allowance rate is a backward-looking summary of decisions already made—allowed and abandoned applications—and does not forecast the outcome of any pending or future application. Aggregate figures describe patterns in past work; they are correlational, not predictive.

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 →

The record, art unit by art unit.1 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 2411
137 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

83%
higher than about 52% of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2411
AU avg 76%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2411; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition137 decided applications

114 allowed
23 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 22.7mo
disposed 36.9mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 21 mo, disposed 38.4 mo.

Rejection groundsexaminer ● vs art-unit average ○

REJECTION RATE = SHARE OF THIS EXAMINER'S APPLICATIONS THAT DREW ≥1 OFFICE-ACTION REJECTION IN WHICH THE GROUND APPEARS

Grounds can co-occur, so the four don't sum to 100%. The art-unit figure is the unweighted mean across examiners in the art unit; §102 and §112 carry no art-unit benchmark.

§101 — Subject-matter eligibility
AU 26
24%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
66%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 86
77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
68%

Interview benefit

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

without
87%
9 pts
with
78%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 54 decided applications with an interview and 83 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Albert K Shih

  • What is Albert K Shih's allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 83%, measured as the share of decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) in the examiner's pooled record across hundreds of decided cases.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The public record spans one art unit in TC 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The allowance rate is a historical summary of past decisions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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.

Drafting and prosecuting patent applicationsApplication 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 Albert K Shih has a public record within Technology Center 2400. Statistics are computed from publicly available USPTO records, refreshed on a recurring schedule. This page's data was last updated July 22, 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: 137 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