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

Examiner Ruolei Zong

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 1,073 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
88%vs 69% weighted peer average+19 pts

Examiner Ruolei Zong has allowed 942 of 1,073 decided applications.

942 allowed
Plus 27 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (69%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2441 · 87%AU 2449 · 100%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Ruolei Zong maintains an 88% allowance rate across more than a thousand decided applications in Technology Center 2400. The examiner works across 2 art units within this technology center. The allowance rate ranges from 87% to 100% across these art units. This pooled figure represents the share of decided applications—those allowed or abandoned—and does not include pending applications. The record reflects outcomes on applications that have reached final disposition.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates results across multiple art units, masking variation among them. The overall allowance rate describes historical outcomes on decided applications and is not a prediction of disposition for any specific application. Art-unit-level records, where available separately, show how individual units within the technology center differ. Aggregate figures are descriptive of past performance only.

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 2441
1,039 APPS · 87% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

87%
higher than about 81% of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2441
AU avg 69%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2441; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition1,035 decided applications

904 allowed
Plus 4 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 17.2mo
disposed 27.9mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.1 mo, disposed 40.1 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 42
36%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
45%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 77
79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
50%

Interview benefit

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

without
85%
+8 pts
with
93%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 350 decided applications with an interview and 685 without.

ART UNIT 2449
61 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

100%
higher than about 95% of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2449
AU avg 55%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 37 examiners with published rates in art unit 2449; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition38 decided applications

38 allowed
Plus 23 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 17.1mo
disposed 26.5mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.9 mo, disposed 40.3 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 40
19%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
65%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 87
81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
37%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Ruolei Zong

  • What is Examiner Zong's overall allowance rate?
    88% across more than a thousand decided applications in Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    2 art units within TC 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The rate ranges from 87% to 100% across these art units.
◈ 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.

Drafting and prosecuting patent applicationsApplication 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 Ruolei Zong 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: 1,100 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