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

Examiner Andrew N Ho

TECH CENTER 2100 · 2 ART UNITS · 226 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS

Examiner Andrew N Ho has allowed 140 of 226 decided applications (62%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

62% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2162 · 56%AU 2169 · 90%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Andrew N Ho has a pooled allowance rate of 62% across 226 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His record spans two art units. The allowance rate ranges from 56% to 90% across these art units, reflecting variation in the decided caseload composition. Of 254 total applications on record, 140 were allowed and 86 were abandoned. This pooled figure aggregates different art-unit records and describes the historical disposition rate without predicting outcomes on any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates results across multiple art units with potentially different subject matter and prosecution patterns. The overall allowance rate describes past dispositions and is not a prediction for any particular application. The range from minimum to maximum allowance rate among the examiner's art units indicates that individual art-unit records may differ materially from the pooled average. Applicants may review individual art-unit statistics for more granular context.

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 2162
185 APPS · 56% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

56% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION103 / 82 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.3 moart unit avg 23.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY49.2 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility68% · art unit 56%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)73%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness59%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW69%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW31%+38 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 121 decided applications with an interview and 64 without.

ART UNIT 2169
69 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

90% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 47%
DISPOSITION37 / 4 / 28allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23 moart unit avg 24.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY52.2 moart unit avg 40 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility82% · art unit 57%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)61%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness59%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Andrew N Ho

  • What is Andrew N Ho's overall allowance rate?
    62% across 226 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). This is the rate of allowed applications among all decided cases and is not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Two art units (2162 and 2169) in TC 2100. The pooled record aggregates both units.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the examiner's art units?
    The allowance rate ranges from 56% to 90% across these art units. Individual art-unit records may differ materially from the pooled average.
  • Does this allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. Historical statistics describe past dispositions and do not predict 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 Andrew N Ho 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: 254 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