LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/ALLEN C WONG
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Allen C Wong

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 1,040 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
90%vs 81% weighted peer average+9 pts

Examiner Allen C Wong has allowed 934 of 1,040 decided applications.

934 allowed
Plus 47 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (81%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2488 · 91%AU 2482 · 69%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Allen C Wong maintains a pooled allowance rate of 90% across more than a thousand decided applications in Technology Center 2400. The examiner's record spans 2 art units. The allowance rate ranges from 69% to 91% across these art units, reflecting variation in the decided applications handled within each unit. This pooled figure represents applications that have been either allowed or abandoned; pending applications are excluded from the calculation.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, combining decided applications from each. The overall allowance rate describes past outcomes across this combined set and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual art units within an examiner's portfolio may show different allowance rates. Reviewing both the pooled figure and the range across art units provides a fuller picture of an examiner's public record.

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.2 art units

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 2488
1,022 APPS · 91% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

91%
higher than about 79% of the 24 examiners with published rates in art unit 2488
AU avg 82%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 24 examiners with published rates in art unit 2488; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 25 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 24 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition975 decided applications

889 allowed
Plus 47 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.1mo
disposed 27.5mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.1 mo, disposed 31.5 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 24
30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
54%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 85
63%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
25%

Interview benefit

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

without
91%
+4 pts
with
95%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 135 decided applications with an interview and 840 without.

ART UNIT 2482
65 APPS · 69% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

69%
higher than about 40% of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2482
AU avg 66%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 35 examiners with published rates in art unit 2482; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 45 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 35 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition65 decided applications

45 allowed
20 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 37.8mo
disposed 47.4mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.7 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 13
15%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
8%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 79
54%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
54%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Allen C Wong

  • What is Allen C Wong's overall allowance rate?
    The pooled allowance rate is 90% across more than a thousand decided applications in Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Allen C Wong's public record spans 2 art units.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the art units?
    The allowance rate ranges from 69% to 91% across the examiner's art units.
◈ 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.

Lynch LLP's patent practiceApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.PTAB trials and patent appealsAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Building a patent portfolioHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Booking a consultationFree 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 Allen C Wong 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: 1,087 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