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

Examiner Suk Jin Kang

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 656 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
68%vs 79% weighted peer average11 pts

Examiner Suk Jin Kang has allowed 444 of 656 decided applications.

444 allowed
212 abandoned
Plus 69 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (79%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2477 · 69%AU 2419 · 42%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Suk Jin Kang maintains a pooled allowance rate of 68% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. The examiner's record spans 2 art units. The allowance rate ranges from 42% to 69% across these art units, reflecting variation in the decided applications within each unit. This pooled figure represents the share of allowed applications among all decided (allowed and abandoned) cases and describes the examiner's historical record.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units within Technology Center 2400. The overall allowance rate reflects performance across all decided applications in those units combined. Pooled figures describe past outcomes and are not predictions for any individual application. Variation across art units means that specific applications may encounter different patterns depending on their assigned unit.

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 2477
694 APPS · 69% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

69%
higher than about 17% of the 23 examiners with published rates in art unit 2477
AU avg 80%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 23 examiners with published rates in art unit 2477; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition625 decided applications

431 allowed
194 abandoned
Plus 69 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 21.4mo
disposed 44.7mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.3 mo, disposed 39.5 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 22
21%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
86%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 88
90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
36%

Interview benefit

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

without
68%
+2 pts
with
70%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 249 decided applications with an interview and 376 without.

ART UNIT 2419
31 APPS · 42% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

42%
higher than about 29% of the 129 examiners with published rates in art unit 2419
AU avg 58%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 129 examiners with published rates in art unit 2419; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition31 decided applications

13 allowed
18 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 38.6mo
disposed 52.1mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 31.1 mo, disposed 44.4 mo.
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Suk Jin Kang

  • What is Examiner Kang's overall allowance rate?
    The pooled allowance rate is 68% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Suk Jin Kang has a record in 2 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 42% to 69% across these art units, indicating variation in outcomes by unit.
  • What does this pooled allowance rate mean for my application?
    The pooled figure describes historical outcomes and is not a prediction for any specific 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.

Drafting and prosecuting patent applicationsApplication 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 Suk Jin Kang 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: 725 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