LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/FRANK F HUANG
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Frank F Huang

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 845 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
78%vs 66% weighted peer average+12 pts

Examiner Frank F Huang has allowed 662 of 845 decided applications.

662 allowed
183 abandoned
Plus 39 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (66%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2485 · 78%AU 2482

What the data says.reading this examiner

Frank F Huang maintains a public record across 2 art units in Technology Center 2400. Across hundreds of decided applications, his allowance rate is 78%. This rate reflects the proportion of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined), excluding pending matters. The record aggregates his work across multiple art units and represents his historical performance on decided cases in this technology center.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record combines outcomes across 2 art units within TC 2400. The 78% allowance rate describes past decided applications and is a historical aggregate, not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Pooled figures smooth variance across different art-unit subject matters and examiner assignment patterns. Individual art-unit records, when available separately, may show different rates reflecting their distinct technical domains.

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 2485
883 APPS · 78% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

78%
higher than about 59% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2485
AU avg 66%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2485; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition845 decided applications

662 allowed
183 abandoned
Plus 38 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 18.8mo
disposed 30.6mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 27.1 mo, disposed 40.3 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 23
15%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
34%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 77
89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
30%

Interview benefit

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

without
75%
+15 pts
with
90%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 193 decided applications with an interview and 652 without.

ART UNIT 2482
1 APPS · LIMITED DATA

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 13.1mo
0
24mo
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
0%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
0%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 79
100%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
0%

Based on 1 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Frank F Huang

  • What is Frank F Huang's overall allowance rate?
    His allowance rate across hundreds of decided applications is 78%, calculated as allowed applications divided by all decided applications (allowed plus abandoned).
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    This pooled record spans 2 art units (2482, 2485) within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does this record predict what will happen to my application?
    No. This is a historical aggregate of past decided cases. It is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
  • What does the allowance rate include?
    The allowance rate reflects allowed and abandoned applications only. Pending applications are excluded from this calculation.
◈ 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.Work before the Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Planning a patent portfolio over timeHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.The firm's consultation optionsFree 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 Frank F Huang 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: 884 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