LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/ALVIN H TAN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Alvin H Tan

TECH CENTER 2100 · 5 ART UNITS · 634 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 5 ART UNITS

Examiner Alvin H Tan has allowed 354 of 634 decided applications (56%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

56% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2172 · 55%AU 2178 · 62%AU 2118 · 76%AU 2173 · 35%AU 2144 · 70%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Alvin H Tan maintains a public record across 5 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 634 decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate stands at 56%. The examiner's work spans multiple art units in TC 2100, with allowance rates ranging from 35% to 76% across these units. This pooled figure reflects 354 allowed applications and 280 abandoned applications. The record covers a substantial application volume and demonstrates variation in outcomes across the different art units within the technology center.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's decisions across multiple art units, presenting an overall allowance rate rather than per-unit detail. This aggregate figure describes historical outcomes and is a snapshot of past decisions, not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Variation across art units—shown here as a range from 35% to 76%—reflects differences in subject matter, applicant strategies, or claim composition by unit, not examiner performance. Pooled statistics are descriptive; they do not determine or forecast results for individual cases.

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 2172
255 APPS · 55% ALLOWANCE
55% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION139 / 116 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29.9 moart unit avg 24.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY62.6 moart unit avg 44.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility45% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)75%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness36%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW68%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW45%+23 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 109 decided applications with an interview and 146 without.

ART UNIT 2178
179 APPS · 62% ALLOWANCE
62% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 54%
DISPOSITION111 / 68 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.6 moart unit avg 25.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.6 moart unit avg 41.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility44% · art unit 36%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)94%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness42%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW64%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW59%+5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 111 decided applications with an interview and 68 without.

ART UNIT 2118
119 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE
76% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION50 / 16 / 53allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.1 moart unit avg 22.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.9 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility39% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness88% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness51%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW76%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW76%0 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 41 decided applications with an interview and 25 without.

ART UNIT 2173
114 APPS · 35% ALLOWANCE
35% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION40 / 74 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION37 moart unit avg 25.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY64.2 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility100% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)0%
§103 — Obviousness0% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW51%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW28%+23 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 35 decided applications with an interview and 79 without.

ART UNIT 2144
20 APPS · 70% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
70% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION14 / 6 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.6 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility30% · art unit 45%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)70%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 92%
§112 — Written description & definiteness30%

Based on 20 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Alvin H Tan

  • What is Examiner Tan's overall allowance rate?
    56% across 634 decided applications pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    5 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • What is the range of allowance rates across Examiner Tan's art units?
    Allowance rates range from 35% to 76% across the examiner's art units. This is a factual range and does not identify which rate applies to any specific art unit.
  • Does this pooled allowance rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. This figure is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction for any specific application.
◈ 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 Alvin H Tan 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: 687 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