LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2400/HONG SOL CHO
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Hong Sol Cho

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 1,564 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
91%vs 73% weighted peer average+18 pts

Examiner Hong Sol Cho has allowed 1,423 of 1,564 decided applications.

1,423 allowed
Plus 39 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (73%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2467 · 92%AU 2419 · 82%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Hong Sol Cho has an overall allowance rate of 91% across more than a thousand decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications, spanning 2 art units in Technology Center 2400. Across these art units the allowance rate ranges from 82% 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 Hong Sol Cho's record across 2 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.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 2467
1,497 APPS · 92% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

92%
higher than about 88% of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2467
AU avg 74%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 25 examiners with published rates in art unit 2467; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 26 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 25 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition1,458 decided applications

1,336 allowed
Plus 39 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 18.9mo
disposed 27.2mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 22.2 mo, disposed 35.7 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 24
15%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
44%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 82
68%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
24%

Interview benefit

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

without
91%
+2 pts
with
93%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 232 decided applications with an interview and 1,226 without.

ART UNIT 2419
106 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

82%
higher than about 79% of the 129 examiners with published rates in art unit 2419
AU avg 58%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 129 examiners with published rates in art unit 2419; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition106 decided applications

87 allowed
19 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 36.1mo
disposed 50.8mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 31.1 mo, disposed 44.4 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 24
100%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
100%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 79
100%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
100%

Interview benefit

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

without
78%
+22 pts
with
100%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 18 decided applications with an interview and 88 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Hong Sol Cho

  • What is Examiner Hong Sol Cho's overall allowance rate?
    91% across more than a thousand decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications in public USPTO data, pooled over 2 art units.
  • How many art units does Examiner Hong Sol Cho examine in?
    2 art units within Technology Center 2400, based on the public record.
  • Does Examiner Hong Sol Cho's allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Across the examiner's substantial art units the allowance rate ranges from 82% 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 Hong Sol Cho 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: 1,603 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