LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/ALEX N GOFMAN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Alex N Gofman

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 628 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Alex N Gofman has allowed 449 of 628 decided applications (72%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

72% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2163 · 74%AU 2162 · 60%AU 2161 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Alex N Gofman holds a public record of 663 total applications across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 628 disposed applications, 449 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 71%. The remaining 179 applications were abandoned. Across the examiner's art units, allowance rates range from 60% to 74%. This pooled record reflects outcomes aggregated from all three art units and does not predict results in any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data from multiple art units into a single profile. The figures presented reflect past outcomes across all units combined and describe the historical record only. The allowance rate (71% over 628 decided applications) and the range across art units (60% to 74%) are correlational summaries of prior dispositions. Pooled data does not indicate how any specific application will be handled in any particular art 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 →

// 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 2163
531 APPS · 74% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

74% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 64%
DISPOSITION369 / 127 / 35allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.2 moart unit avg 23.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.5 moart unit avg 40.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility55% · art unit 51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)51%
§103 — Obviousness95% · art unit 78%
§112 — Written description & definiteness46%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW79%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW66%+13 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 305 decided applications with an interview and 191 without.

ART UNIT 2162
131 APPS · 60% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

60% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION79 / 52 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27 moart unit avg 23.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY54.1 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility36% · art unit 56%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness89% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness36%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW83%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW39%+44 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 64 decided applications with an interview and 67 without.

ART UNIT 2161
1 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 62%
DISPOSITION1 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30.2 moart unit avg 23.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.3 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)0%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%

Based on 1 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Alex N Gofman

  • What is Alex N Gofman's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 71%, calculated from 449 allowed applications out of 628 disposed applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Alex N Gofman has a public record across 3 art units: 2161, 2162, and 2163, all within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the art units?
    Allowance rates range from 60% to 74% across the examiner's art units with substantial records.
  • What do these figures mean for my application?
    These figures describe the examiner's past record and do not predict the outcome of any specific application. Outcomes depend on the merits of each case.
◈ 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 Alex N Gofman 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: 663 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