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

Examiner Avi M Gold

TECH CENTER 2100 · 1 ART UNIT · 50 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION SEP 2008
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
32%vs 55% art-unit average23 pts

Examiner Avi M Gold has allowed 16 of 50 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

allowed16abandoned34pending0· pending excluded from the rate
DATA UPDATED JULY 14, 2026
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Avi M Gold maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across dozens of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 32%, representing the share of applications that were allowed among all decided (allowed and abandoned) cases in the pooled record. This figure spans a single art unit, aggregating the examiner's examination activity across the subject matter of TC 2100. The allowance rate is a historical summary of past dispositions and does not characterize future outcomes on any particular application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates examination results across one art unit within TC 2100. The pooled allowance rate of 32% describes past decided applications and reflects the examiner's historical record across that scope. Aggregate figures do not predict outcomes on specific applications; individual case circumstances, claim scope, prior art, and prosecution history remain distinct factors in any examination.

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 2157
50 APPS · 32% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

32% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION16 / 34 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION38.9 moart unit avg 28 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY57.2 moart unit avg 46.6 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Avi M Gold

  • What is Avi M Gold's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 32%, based on decided applications (allowed and abandoned) pooled across all art units. This is a historical figure and not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Avi M Gold's public record spans one art unit within Technology Center 2100.
  • What does the allowance rate tell me?
    The allowance rate is the percentage of decided applications that were allowed. It describes the examiner's past record and is calculated only from applications with final dispositions (allowed or abandoned), excluding pending cases.
  • How large is the sample of decisions?
    The allowance rate is based on dozens of decided applications, pooled across the examiner's art unit(s).
◈ HOW LYNCH LLP CAN HELP

Where to go next.

Lynch LLP represents applicants in patent prosecution before the USPTO. These are general resources about the firm's services — not advice about this examiner or any specific application.

Patent prosecution at Lynch LLPApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.PTAB trials and patent appealsAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Building a patent portfolioHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Booking a consultationFree and paid consultation options across the firm's attorneys.
◈ 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 Avi M Gold 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 July 14, 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: 50 applications.

Rejection rates. Each §-rate is the share of this examiner's applications that drew at least one office-action rejection in which that statutory ground appears; applications with no rejection on record are excluded, and because grounds can co-occur the four do not sum to 100%. The art-unit figure beside each is the unweighted mean of the per-examiner rates across the art unit, published for §101 and §103 only. Beside the overall allowance rate we show a benchmark: for a single-art-unit examiner it is exactly that art unit's average, labeled “art-unit average”; for an examiner spanning several art units it is the “weighted peer average” — the per-art-unit averages, weighted by this examiner's application count in each — labeled distinctly because it is a blended figure, not any single art unit's average. Both are built from the same per-art-unit averages the panels show.

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