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

Examiner Hee K Song

TECH CENTER 2400 · 3 ART UNITS · 876 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS
87%vs 80% weighted peer average+7 pts

Examiner Hee K Song has allowed 763 of 876 decided applications.

763 allowed
Plus 26 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (80%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (3 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2497 · 92%AU 2433 · 72%AU 2436 · 0%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Hee K Song has an overall allowance rate of 87% across hundreds of decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications, spanning 3 art units in Technology Center 2400. Across these art units the allowance rate ranges from 72% to 92%. These are pooled figures from the public USPTO record, not predictions about any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This page pools Examiner Hee K Song's record across 3 art units into one overall allowance rate — total allowed divided by total decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications, with pending excluded. Aggregate figures describe the past public record and are not predictions about any specific application. This is general information about the data, not legal advice.

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 2497
709 APPS · 92% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

92%
higher than about 74% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2497
AU avg 84%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2497; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 28 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 27 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition683 decided applications

626 allowed
Plus 26 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 19.3mo
disposed 29.7mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 19.1 mo, disposed 31.7 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
44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
63%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 85
67%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
39%

Interview benefit

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

without
88%
+9 pts
with
97%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 295 decided applications with an interview and 388 without.

ART UNIT 2433
190 APPS · 72% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

72%
higher than about 35% of the 31 examiners with published rates in art unit 2433
AU avg 64%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 31 examiners with published rates in art unit 2433; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 32 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 31 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition190 decided applications

137 allowed
53 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 33.4mo
disposed 51.1mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 26.2 mo, disposed 41.6 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
31%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
35%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 86
85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
38%

Interview benefit

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

without
63%
+35 pts
with
98%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 51 decided applications with an interview and 139 without.

ART UNIT 2436
3 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

0%
higher than about 0% of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2436
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2436; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 38 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 37 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition3 decided applications

3 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 38.3mo
disposed 44.7mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 27 mo, disposed 43.5 mo.
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Hee K Song

  • What is Examiner Hee K Song's overall allowance rate?
    87% across hundreds of decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications in public USPTO data, pooled over 3 art units.
  • How many art units does Examiner Hee K Song examine in?
    3 art units within Technology Center 2400, based on the public record.
  • Does Examiner Hee K Song's allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Across the examiner's substantial art units the allowance rate ranges from 72% to 92% in public USPTO data.
◈ 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.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 Hee K Song 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: 902 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