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

Examiner Weibin Huang

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 718 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
90%vs 87% weighted peer average+3 pts

Examiner Weibin Huang has allowed 647 of 718 decided applications.

647 allowed
Plus 71 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (87%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2471 · 90%AU 2416 · 75%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Weibin Huang maintains a pooled allowance rate of 90% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2400. This allowance rate represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned) in the examiner's record. The examiner's work spans 2 art units within the technology center. The 90% figure aggregates the outcomes across these art units and reflects the examiner's historical disposition of decided cases. This pooled record is a summary of past outcomes and does not constitute a prediction for any specific pending application.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units, producing a single allowance-rate figure that describes past dispositions rather than future outcomes for any given case. The examiner's record here spans 2 art units, meaning the 90% rate blends different subject areas within TC 2400. Aggregate statistics represent historical performance and are correlational only—they do not determine the result of any individual application. Per-art-unit detail appears separately on this page.

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 2471
777 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

90%
higher than about 48% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2471
AU avg 87%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2471; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition706 decided applications

638 allowed
Plus 71 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 20.7mo
disposed 30.4mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 21.9 mo, disposed 32.5 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
26%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
70%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 71
71%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
44%

Interview benefit

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

without
90%
+3 pts
with
93%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 122 decided applications with an interview and 584 without.

ART UNIT 2416
12 APPS · 75% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

75%
higher than about 63% of the 144 examiners with published rates in art unit 2416
AU avg 58%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 144 examiners with published rates in art unit 2416; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 146 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 144 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition12 decided applications

9 allowed
3 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 34.5mo
disposed 42.4mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 33.2 mo, disposed 47.8 mo.
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Weibin Huang

  • What is Examiner Huang's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 90%, measured across hundreds of decided applications. This is the share of allowed applications among all decided cases (allowed and abandoned combined).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Huang's record spans 2 art units (2416 and 2471) within Technology Center 2400. The pooled 90% rate aggregates outcomes across both art units.
  • Does this pooled rate apply to my application?
    The pooled rate describes the examiner's historical record and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual results vary based on claim scope, prior art, and other case-specific factors.
  • What does 'decided applications' mean?
    Decided applications include those that were allowed or abandoned. Pending applications are excluded. The 90% allowance rate is the share of allowed cases within that decided pool.
◈ 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 Weibin Huang 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: 789 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