LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/ALEKSANDR KERZHNER
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Aleksandr Kerzhner

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 250 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAR 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Aleksandr Kerzhner has allowed 174 of 250 decided applications (70%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

70% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2162 · 74%AU 2165 · 39%AU 2169 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Aleksandr Kerzhner maintains a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 250 disposed applications, his pooled allowance rate is 70%, with 174 allowed and 76 abandoned. The allowance rate ranges from 39% to 74% across these art units, reflecting variation in outcomes by subject matter within the technology center. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's record across multiple art units and describes his historical disposition of applications in this field.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines statistics across multiple art units, creating an aggregate profile rather than unit-specific detail. The overall allowance rate of 70% reflects decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) across all 3 art units over time. This aggregate describes the past record and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Variation across individual art units may reflect differences in subject matter complexity or application volume, visible separately in per-unit records.

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 →

// BY ART UNIT

The record, art unit by art unit.

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 2162
218 APPS · 74% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

74% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION161 / 57 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.3 moart unit avg 23.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY46.1 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility63% · art unit 56%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)57%
§103 — Obviousness78% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness18%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW73%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW74%-1 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 66 decided applications with an interview and 152 without.

ART UNIT 2165
33 APPS · 39% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

39% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION12 / 19 / 2allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.2 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY51.8 moart unit avg 39.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility64% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)76%
§103 — Obviousness84% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness48%

Based on 33 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2169
1 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 47%
DISPOSITION1 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29.5 moart unit avg 24.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCYart unit avg 40 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Aleksandr Kerzhner

  • What is Aleksandr Kerzhner's overall allowance rate?
    70% across 250 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    3 art units (2162, 2165, 2169) within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 39% to 74% across these art units, reflecting differences in outcomes by subject area within the technology center.
  • Does this pooled rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The pooled allowance rate describes the examiner's historical record and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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 Aleksandr Kerzhner has a public record within Technology Center 2100. Statistics are computed from publicly available USPTO records, refreshed on a recurring schedule. This page's data was last updated June 25, 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: 252 applications.

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