LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/DAVID E CHOI
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner David E Choi

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 790 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner David E Choi has allowed 634 of 790 decided applications (80%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

80% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2174 · 74%AU 2148 · 96%AU 2173 · 94%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

David E Choi maintains a public record across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 790 disposed applications, 634 were allowed, yielding an 80% allowance rate. The allowance rate ranges from 74% to 96% across the examiner's art units. This pooled figure reflects outcomes across multiple subject areas within TC 2100 and does not isolate performance in any single art unit or predict outcomes in specific applications.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates three art units, each of which may have distinct examination patterns. The pooled allowance rate—80% over 790 decided cases—describes the examiner's historical outcomes across all three units combined. Pooled figures are descriptive of past record only and are not predictions about any specific application. To understand performance within a particular art unit, consult the per-art-unit detail section.

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 2174
569 APPS · 74% ALLOWANCE
74% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION423 / 146 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.6 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility26% · art unit 33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)55%
§103 — Obviousness89% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness20%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW80%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW71%+9 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 192 decided applications with an interview and 377 without.

ART UNIT 2148
211 APPS · 96% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

96% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION177 / 8 / 26allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.9 moart unit avg 29.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.6 moart unit avg 42.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility28% · art unit 70%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)53%
§103 — Obviousness89% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness22%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW98%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW95%+3 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 51 decided applications with an interview and 134 without.

ART UNIT 2173
36 APPS · 94% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
94% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION34 / 2 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.8 moart unit avg 25.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY27.8 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility14% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)57%
§103 — Obviousness89% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness7%

Based on 36 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner David E Choi

  • What is David E Choi's overall allowance rate?
    80% across 790 disposed applications, pooled across all three art units in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Three art units: 2148, 2173, and 2174, all within Technology Center 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the examiner's art units?
    Allowance rates range from 74% to 96% across these art units.
  • Does this pooled rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. This is a historical aggregate across multiple art units and is not a prediction of 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 David E Choi 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: 816 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