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

Examiner Shirley X Zhang

TECH CENTER 2400 · 4 ART UNITS · 686 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS
72%vs 54% weighted peer average+18 pts

Examiner Shirley X Zhang has allowed 497 of 686 decided applications.

497 allowed
189 abandoned
Plus 38 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (54%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (4 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2442 · 71%AU 2447 · 97%AU 2444 · 21%AU 2431

What the data says.reading this examiner

Shirley X Zhang maintains an allowance rate of 72% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. Her record spans four art units: 2431, 2442, 2444, and 2447. The allowance rate—the percentage of decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined, excluding pending cases)—represents her pooled experience across these art units. Allowance rates across her individual art units range from 21% to 97%, reflecting variation in her record by art unit. This aggregate figure describes the examiner's historical record and is not a prediction of the outcome of any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates the examiner's performance across multiple art units within Technology Center 2400. The overall allowance rate of 72% combines allowed and abandoned applications, excluding pending matters. Because the record is pooled, the aggregate figure masks variation among individual art units; rates range from 21% to 97% depending on the art unit. Historical allowance rates describe past outcomes and do not predict the result of any particular application or prosecution path.

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.4 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 2442
476 APPS · 71% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

71%
higher than about 73% of the 40 examiners with published rates in art unit 2442
AU avg 50%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 40 examiners with published rates in art unit 2442; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition476 decided applications

336 allowed
140 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 21mo
disposed 38.5mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 25.1 mo, disposed 43.6 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 39
46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
63%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 83
88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
48%

Interview benefit

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

without
64%
+15 pts
with
79%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 204 decided applications with an interview and 272 without.

ART UNIT 2447
191 APPS · 97% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

97%
higher than about 80% 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.

Disposition154 decided applications

149 allowed
Plus 37 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 21.3mo
disposed 31.4mo
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
47%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
61%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 84
86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
43%

Interview benefit

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

without
96%
+1 pt
with
97%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 71 decided applications with an interview and 83 without.

ART UNIT 2444
56 APPS · 21% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

21%
higher than about 5% of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2444
AU avg 64%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 38 examiners with published rates in art unit 2444; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition56 decided applications

12 allowed
44 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 39.8mo
disposed 55.2mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 25.6 mo, disposed 43.7 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 41
100%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
50%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 80
100%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
100%
ART UNIT 2431
1 APPS · LIMITED DATA
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Shirley X Zhang

  • What is Shirley X Zhang's overall allowance rate?
    Her allowance rate is 72% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400, calculated as a percentage of allowed and abandoned applications (pending applications are excluded).
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Shirley X Zhang has a record spanning four art units: 2431, 2442, 2444, and 2447, all within Technology Center 2400.
  • Is the allowance rate the same across all her art units?
    No. Allowance rates across her art units range from 21% to 97%. The pooled 72% figure combines her record across all four art units and does not reflect the rate in any single art unit.
  • What does this record predict about my application?
    Historical allowance rates describe past outcomes and are not predictions of the result of any specific application. Outcomes depend on application-specific facts, claims, and prosecution history.
◈ 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 Shirley X Zhang 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: 724 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