LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/ERIC H WANG
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Eric H Wang

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 66 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION DEC 2015
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
88%vs 82% art-unit average+6 pts
higher than about 50% of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2469
AU avg 82%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2469; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 27 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 26 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Eric H Wang has allowed 58 of 66 decided applications.

58 allowed
No applications pending.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Eric H Wang maintains a pooled allowance rate of 88% across dozens of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This record encompasses a single art unit. The allowance rate reflects the share of applications that were allowed, measured against all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined) in the examiner's pooled history. This figure describes the examiner's past record and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates decided applications across all art units assigned to the examiner. The allowance rate of 88% describes historical outcomes and reflects the examiner's overall disposition across the decided application set. An aggregate rate is a statistical summary of past decisions and does not forecast the result of any individual application or predict how any specific case will be examined.

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 2469
66 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

88%
higher than about 50% of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2469
AU avg 82%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 26 examiners with published rates in art unit 2469; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 27 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 26 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition66 decided applications

58 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 23.7mo
disposed 35.8mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 20.9 mo, disposed 34.8 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
13%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
38%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 90
98%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
41%

Interview benefit

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

without
64%
+36 pts
with
100%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 44 decided applications with an interview and 22 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Eric H Wang

  • What is Eric H Wang's allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 88%, calculated across dozens of decided applications (allowed and abandoned). This represents the examiner's historical record and is not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    The pooled record spans 1 art unit in Technology Center 2400. The figures presented aggregate all decided applications across that unit.
  • What does the allowance rate mean?
    The allowance rate is the percentage of decided applications that were allowed. It measures outcomes only among applications that reached a final decision (allowed or abandoned), excluding pending applications.
  • Does this rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. This pooled record describes past decisions and is not a prediction of any specific application's result. Individual cases depend on their merits, claims, and examination.
◈ 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.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 Eric H Wang 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: 66 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