Examiner Andrew L Tank has allowed 399 of 582 decided applications (69%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Andrew L Tank maintains a pooled allowance rate of 69% across 582 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His public record spans five art units: 2141, 2142, 2173, 2175, and 2179. Of 627 total applications, 399 were allowed and 183 were abandoned. The allowance rate across individual art units ranges from 53% to 82%, reflecting variation in outcomes within the technology center's subject matter.
This pooled record aggregates results across five art units within TC 2100. The 69% figure represents past dispositions—allowed and abandoned applications—and describes the historical record only. Aggregate statistics do not predict outcomes for any specific application. Individual art units may show different patterns; the range of 53% to 82% indicates heterogeneity among them. Pooled data provides a high-level view; detailed art-unit records are available separately.
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 →
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.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 170 decided applications with an interview and 150 without.
Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 41 decided applications with an interview and 60 without.
Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 37 decided applications with an interview and 39 without.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 37 decided applications with an interview and 23 without.
Based on 25 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Andrew L Tank 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: 627 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