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

Examiner Alexander Khong

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 728 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 Alexander Khong has allowed 627 of 728 decided applications (86%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

86% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2155 · 78%AU 2168 · 93%AU 2157 · 90%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Alexander Khong maintains a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 728 disposed applications, his allowance rate is 86%, reflecting 627 allowed and 101 abandoned applications. The allowance rate ranges from 78% to 93% across these art units, indicating variation in disposition patterns by art unit. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes across multiple subject-matter areas within TC 2100 and describes historical performance only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines outcomes from multiple art units into a single aggregate allowance rate. This figure describes past dispositions and is not predictive of any specific application's outcome. The range across art units shows that allowance rates differ by art unit; the aggregate masks this variation. Understanding both the pooled rate and the range helps contextualize the examiner's record across TC 2100.

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 2155
282 APPS · 78% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

78% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION219 / 63 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21 moart unit avg 27.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.1 moart unit avg 42.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility59% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)74%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness36%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW91%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW54%+37 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 182 decided applications with an interview and 100 without.

ART UNIT 2168
250 APPS · 93% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

93% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION211 / 15 / 24allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION14.1 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY21.7 moart unit avg 43.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility28% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)71%
§103 — Obviousness76% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness21%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW99%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW90%+9 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 86 decided applications with an interview and 140 without.

ART UNIT 2157
220 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

90% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION197 / 23 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.9 moart unit avg 28 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY31.2 moart unit avg 46.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility28% · art unit 48%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)79%
§103 — Obviousness82% · art unit 85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness27%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW96%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW82%+14 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 118 decided applications with an interview and 102 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Alexander Khong

  • What is Alexander Khong's overall allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 86% across 728 disposed applications (627 allowed, 101 abandoned), pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    The record spans 3 art units: 2155, 2157, and 2168, all within TC 2100.
  • How much do allowance rates vary across his art units?
    The allowance rate ranges from 78% to 93% across these art units, showing variation in disposition outcomes by art unit.
  • Does this pooled rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The pooled rate describes historical aggregate performance 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 Alexander Khong 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: 752 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