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

Examiner Peter Chen

TECH CENTER 2400 · 1 ART UNIT · 533 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
89%vs 77% art-unit average+12 pts
higher than about 85% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2462
AU avg 77%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2462; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Examiner Peter Chen has allowed 473 of 533 decided applications.

473 allowed
Plus 43 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026

What the data says.reading this examiner

Peter Chen's public record spans 1 art unit in Technology Center 2400. Across hundreds of decided applications, the allowance rate is 89%. This rate represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined) in the examiner's pooled record. The allowance rate figure describes the historical record and is not a prediction of outcome for any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates the examiner's work across all assigned art units. The allowance rate shown here reflects past dispositions across decided applications and represents an aggregate performance metric. Pooled figures describe historical patterns and do not predict results on individual applications. Application outcomes depend on claim scope, prior art, and statutory requirements specific to each 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 2462
576 APPS · 89% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

89%
higher than about 85% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2462
AU avg 77%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2462; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition533 decided applications

473 allowed
Plus 43 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 18.4mo
disposed 31.8mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.1 mo, disposed 38.3 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
19%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
84%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 84
88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
63%

Interview benefit

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

without
74%
+21 pts
with
95%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 377 decided applications with an interview and 156 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Peter Chen

  • What is Peter Chen's overall allowance rate?
    89% of his decided applications were allowed, across hundreds of decided applications pooled from all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Peter Chen's record spans 1 art unit.
  • Does this allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. This pooled rate describes past decisions across many applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
  • What technology center is covered by this record?
    Technology Center 2400. The pooled record aggregates all of the examiner's decided applications within that center.
◈ 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.

How the firm prosecutes patentsApplication 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 Peter Chen 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: 576 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