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

Examiner Kyung H Shin

TECH CENTER 2400 · 3 ART UNITS · 1,191 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS
85%vs 66% weighted peer average+19 pts

Examiner Kyung H Shin has allowed 1,008 of 1,191 decided applications.

1,008 allowed
183 abandoned
Plus 33 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 (3 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2443 · 79%AU 2447 · 96%AU 2452 · 91%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Kyung H Shin maintains a pooled allowance rate of 85% across more than a thousand decided applications in Technology Center 2400. The examiner's record spans 3 art units: 2443, 2447, and 2452. Allowance rates across these art units range from 79% to 96%. This pooled figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications—those marked allowed or abandoned—and does not include pending applications. The range reflects variation in outcomes across the different art units within the examiner's portfolio.

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates data across multiple art units within Technology Center 2400, producing a single pooled allowance rate. A pooled figure describes the examiner's historical record across a broad set of applications and art units combined. It is a description of past outcomes, not a prediction about any specific pending application. Individual art units may show different allowance rates; the aggregate provides context for the examiner's overall profile in the technology center.

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 2443
759 APPS · 79% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

79%
higher than about 49% of the 45 examiners with published rates in art unit 2443
AU avg 69%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 45 examiners with published rates in art unit 2443; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition759 decided applications

599 allowed
160 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 20.5mo
disposed 38.6mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.1 mo, disposed 40.7 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 37
48%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
68%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 77
90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
21%

Interview benefit

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

without
75%
+13 pts
with
88%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 213 decided applications with an interview and 546 without.

ART UNIT 2447
340 APPS · 96% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

96%
higher than about 78% of the 41 examiners with published rates in art unit 2447
AU avg 59%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 41 examiners with published rates in art unit 2447; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 43 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 41 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition307 decided applications

295 allowed
Plus 33 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 18.4mo
disposed 25.9mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 22.6 mo, disposed 37.4 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 35
50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
51%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 84
90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
23%

Interview benefit

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

without
96%
±0 pts
with
96%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 112 decided applications with an interview and 195 without.

ART UNIT 2452
125 APPS · 91% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

91%
higher than about 85% of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2452
AU avg 69%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 34 examiners with published rates in art unit 2452; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition125 decided applications

114 allowed
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 12.5mo
disposed 22.5mo
0
24mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.2 mo, disposed 42.7 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 44
15%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
71%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 87
87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
7%

Interview benefit

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

without
83%
+14 pts
with
97%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 72 decided applications with an interview and 53 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kyung H Shin

  • What is Kyung H Shin's overall allowance rate?
    85% of decided applications across all art units in Technology Center 2400 have been allowed.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    3 art units: 2443, 2447, and 2452.
  • Do allowance rates vary across the art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 79% to 96%.
  • Does this pooled rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The pooled rate describes the examiner's past record across decided applications. It is not a prediction of any specific pending application.
◈ 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.PTAB trials and patent appealsAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Building a patent portfolioHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Booking a consultationFree 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 Kyung H Shin 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: 1,224 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