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

Examiner Kai J Chang

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 462 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
76%vs 61% art-unit average+15 pts
higher than about 50% of the 30 examiners with published rates in art unit 2468
AU avg 61%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 30 examiners with published rates in art unit 2468; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Kai J Chang has allowed 351 of 462 decided applications.

351 allowed
111 abandoned
Plus 24 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Kai J Chang maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across 1 art unit. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 76%. This rate reflects the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined), excluding pending matters. The allowance rate is based on the examiner's pooled record and describes past dispositions only.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates outcomes across all art units under this examiner's jurisdiction. The 76% allowance rate is a historical summary of decided applications and does not constitute a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Pooled figures mask variation across individual art units; detailed per-unit records appear separately. Use this aggregate data to understand the examiner's overall record, not to forecast any particular case.

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 2468
486 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

76%
higher than about 50% of the 30 examiners with published rates in art unit 2468
AU avg 61%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 30 examiners with published rates in art unit 2468; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition462 decided applications

351 allowed
111 abandoned
Plus 24 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 24.4mo
disposed 41.8mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 26.4 mo, disposed 41.5 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 21
18%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
83%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 89
92%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
27%

Interview benefit

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

without
57%
+34 pts
with
91%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 259 decided applications with an interview and 203 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kai J Chang

  • What is Kai J Chang's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 76% across hundreds of decided applications pooled across all art units. This represents the percentage of applications allowed among all decided matters (allowed and abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Kai J Chang's record spans 1 art unit in Technology Center 2400.
  • Does this pooled rate apply to my specific application?
    No. This pooled rate describes the examiner's historical record and is not a prediction for any individual application. Outcomes vary by application, art, and prosecution history.
  • What subject matter does this examiner handle?
    The examiner's jurisdiction is Technology Center 2400. For detailed subject-matter breakdown by art unit, consult the per-unit records.
◈ 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.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 Kai J 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: 486 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