LYNCH·LLP
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Eui H Kim

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 166 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
51%vs 66% art-unit average15 pts
higher than about 25% of the 52 examiners with published rates in art unit 2453
AU avg 66%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 52 examiners with published rates in art unit 2453; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Eui H Kim has allowed 85 of 166 decided applications.

85 allowed
81 abandoned
Plus 40 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Eui H Kim maintains a public record across one art unit within Technology Center 2400. The examiner's pooled allowance rate stands at 51% across hundreds of decided applications. This rate reflects the share of applications that were allowed among all applications with final dispositions (allowed and abandoned combined), excluding pending applications. The record spans a single art unit, providing a focused view of examination activity within a specific technical area.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates examination activity across all of the examiner's assigned art units. The allowance rate is a historical statistic describing past dispositions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Pooled figures represent overall patterns and do not account for variation that may exist within individual art units or across different application characteristics. Aggregate data describes the examiner's record as a whole, not the prospects for any particular filing.

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 2453
206 APPS · 51% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

51%
higher than about 25% of the 52 examiners with published rates in art unit 2453
AU avg 66%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 52 examiners with published rates in art unit 2453; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition166 decided applications

85 allowed
81 abandoned
Plus 40 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 18.9mo
disposed 39.8mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 25.4 mo, disposed 47.5 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 43
46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
80%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 79
98%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
58%

Interview benefit

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

without
12%
+53 pts
with
65%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 123 decided applications with an interview and 43 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Eui H Kim

  • What is Examiner Kim's allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 51%, calculated from applications with final dispositions (allowed and abandoned) across hundreds of decided applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Kim is assigned to one art unit within Technology Center 2400.
  • Is the pooled allowance rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The pooled rate is a historical aggregate and does not predict the outcome of any specific application.
  • What subject matter does this examiner handle?
    Examiner Kim works in Technology Center 2400, as indicated by their art-unit assignment.
◈ 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 Eui H Kim 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: 206 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