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

Examiner Wutchung Chu

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 729 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
83%vs 69% weighted peer average+14 pts

Examiner Wutchung Chu has allowed 603 of 729 decided applications.

603 allowed
126 abandoned
Plus 53 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 2468 · 79%AU 2418 · 98%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Examiner Wutchung Chu's pooled record spans 2 art units within Technology Center 2400, covering hundreds of decided applications. Across these decided applications, the allowance rate stands at 83%. The allowance rates among the examiner's art units range from 79% to 98%, reflecting variation in outcomes across the different art units represented in this record. These figures describe the examiner's historical record and do not constitute predictions about any specific application.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates decided applications across multiple art units, presenting an overall allowance rate alongside a range of rates within each unit. The aggregate allowance rate reflects past outcomes across all units combined. The range shows that individual art units within an examiner's portfolio may differ materially from the pooled figure. These statistics describe historical record only and are not predictions about outcomes in any particular application.

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 2468
578 APPS · 79% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

79%
higher than about 60% of the 30 examiners with published rates in art unit 2468
AU avg 61%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 30 examiners with published rates in art unit 2468; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition578 decided applications

455 allowed
123 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 22.1mo
disposed 38.1mo
0
48mo
Art-unit average: first action 26.4 mo, disposed 41.5 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 21
23%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
45%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 89
96%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
53%

Interview benefit

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

without
69%
+22 pts
with
91%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 250 decided applications with an interview and 328 without.

ART UNIT 2418
204 APPS · 98% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

98%
higher than 3 of the 11 examiners with published rates in art unit 2418
AU avg 93%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 11 examiners with published rates in art unit 2418; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 13 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 11 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition151 decided applications

148 allowed
Plus 53 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 28.4mo
disposed 34.9mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 24.4 mo, disposed 38.9 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 18
20%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
45%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 89
95%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
38%

Interview benefit

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

without
96%
+4 pts
with
100%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 67 decided applications with an interview and 84 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Wutchung Chu

  • What is Examiner Chu's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 83% across hundreds of decided applications pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does Examiner Chu work in?
    The examiner's record spans 2 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • How much variation is there across the art units?
    Allowance rates among the examiner's art units range from 79% to 98%, reflecting differences in outcomes across the different art units.
  • Does the pooled rate apply to my application?
    The pooled allowance rate describes past outcomes and is not a prediction of any specific application. Individual applications depend on their own merits and facts.
◈ 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.

Lynch LLP's patent practiceApplication 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 Wutchung Chu 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: 782 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