LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/DAVID YIUK JUNG
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner David Yiuk Jung

TECH CENTER 2400 · 3 ART UNITS · 318 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION AUG 2013
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS
88%vs 73% weighted peer average+15 pts

Examiner David Yiuk Jung has allowed 281 of 318 decided applications.

281 allowed
No applications pending.
The weighted peer average (73%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (3 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2434 · 85%AU 2431 · 92%AU 2491 · 88%

What the data says.reading this examiner

David Yiuk Jung maintains a public record across three art units within Technology Center 2400, spanning hundreds of decided applications. His pooled allowance rate is 88%, calculated across allowed and abandoned applications. The allowance rate ranges from 85% to 92% across his art units, reflecting variation in the mix of applications decided in each unit. This pooled figure represents the examiner's historical record in aggregate and does not characterize the disposition of any individual application.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, smoothing unit-specific variations into a single overall figure. The 88% allowance rate describes what occurred across hundreds of past decided applications and is historical in nature. Pooled statistics do not predict outcomes on specific applications, nor do they account for differences in application complexity, claim scope, or prior art encountered within individual units.

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.3 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 2434
127 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

85%
higher than about 55% of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2434
AU avg 76%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2434; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 41 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 38 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition127 decided applications

108 allowed
19 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 39.5mo
disposed 54.7mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 26.5 mo, disposed 41.8 mo.
ART UNIT 2431
123 APPS · 92% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

92%
higher than about 70% of the 46 examiners with published rates in art unit 2431
AU avg 73%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 46 examiners with published rates in art unit 2431; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 52 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 46 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition123 decided applications

113 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 34.5mo
disposed 46mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 20.9 mo, disposed 35.1 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 40
12%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
6%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 81
94%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
53%
ART UNIT 2491
68 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

88%
higher than about 85% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2491
AU avg 65%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2491; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition68 decided applications

60 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 29mo
disposed 40.5mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.1 mo, disposed 40 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 41
47%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
19%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 89
60%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
38%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner David Yiuk Jung

  • What is David Yiuk Jung's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 88%, calculated across hundreds of decided applications (allowed and abandoned) in TC 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The public record spans three art units: 2431, 2434, and 2491.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 85% to 92% across the examiner's art units, reflecting differences in the application mix examined in each.
◈ 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.

Patent prosecution at Lynch LLPApplication 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 David Yiuk Jung 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: 318 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