LYNCH·LLP
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Amy Ng

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 263 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JAN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Amy Ng has allowed 172 of 263 decided applications (65%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

65% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2166 · 67%AU 2155 · 83%AU 2141 · 22%AU 2164 · 87%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Amy Ng maintains a public record across four art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 263 disposed applications, she has allowed 172 and abandoned 91, for an overall allowance rate of 65%. The allowance rate varies across her art units, ranging from 22% to 87%. This pooled figure aggregates her performance across all four art units and reflects historical outcomes on decided applications only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines results from multiple art units into a single aggregate figure. The overall allowance rate of 65% describes past outcomes across all units worked and is not a prediction for any particular application. Allowance rates vary among the individual art units; the range (22% to 87%) shows this variation but does not assign any specific rate to any specific unit. Pooled statistics describe historical data, not future case outcomes.

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 2166
112 APPS · 67% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

67% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION75 / 37 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.2 moart unit avg 23.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48.2 moart unit avg 45 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility45% · art unit 44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)55%
§103 — Obviousness82% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness18%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW89%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW44%+45 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 57 decided applications with an interview and 55 without.

ART UNIT 2155
72 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

83% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION60 / 12 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.2 moart unit avg 27.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.3 moart unit avg 42.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility57% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)62%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness22%
ART UNIT 2141
49 APPS · 22% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

22% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION11 / 38 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.4 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY60.8 moart unit avg 47.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility49% · art unit 49%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)86%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness41%

Based on 49 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2164
30 APPS · 87% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

87% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 62%
DISPOSITION26 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.9 moart unit avg 22.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY42 moart unit avg 43.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility55% · art unit 58%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)76%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness45%

Based on 30 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Amy Ng

  • What is Amy Ng's overall allowance rate?
    65% across 263 disposed applications (172 allowed, 91 abandoned). This is a historical pooled figure and is not a prediction of the outcome of any specific application.
  • How many art units does Amy Ng work in?
    Four art units (2141, 2155, 2164, 2166) within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across her art units?
    Allowance rates range from 22% to 87% across the four art units. This range reflects variation in historical outcomes but does not identify which specific rate applies to which unit.
◈ 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 Amy Ng 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: 263 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