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

Examiner Jungwon Chang

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 875 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
86%vs 70% art-unit average+16 pts
higher than about 67% of the 57 examiners with published rates in art unit 2454
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 57 examiners with published rates in art unit 2454; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 58 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 57 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Examiner Jungwon Chang has allowed 756 of 875 decided applications.

756 allowed
Plus 42 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Jungwon Chang maintains a pooled allowance rate of 86% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This record spans one art unit. The allowance rate reflects the percentage of applications that were allowed or abandoned among all decided cases, excluding pending applications. The 86% figure represents the examiner's historical pattern across the pooled decided caseload and does not indicate the outcome of any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates outcomes across one art unit in TC 2400. The 86% allowance rate describes what occurred in past decided applications and is not a prediction about any particular case. Pooled figures combine different subject areas and examination contexts; they characterize the overall historical record only, not the circumstances or prospects of an individual application.

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 2454
917 APPS · 86% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

86%
higher than about 67% of the 57 examiners with published rates in art unit 2454
AU avg 70%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 57 examiners with published rates in art unit 2454; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 58 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 57 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition875 decided applications

756 allowed
Plus 42 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 21.8mo
disposed 36.3mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.8 mo, disposed 40.6 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
32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
69%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 82
86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
33%

Interview benefit

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

without
81%
+15 pts
with
96%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 329 decided applications with an interview and 546 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Jungwon Chang

  • What is Jungwon Chang's allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 86% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This represents the share of applications that were allowed or abandoned among all decided cases.
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    This pooled record covers one art unit. The figures aggregate outcomes across that unit's caseload.
  • Does the 86% rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The allowance rate is a historical statistic from past decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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.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 Jungwon Chang 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: 917 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