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

Examiner David H Tan

TECH CENTER 2100 · 6 ART UNITS · 102 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 6 ART UNITS

Examiner David H Tan has allowed 34 of 102 decided applications (33%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

33% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2145 · 34%AU 2171 · 29%AU 2177 · 27%AU 2141 · 67%AU 2142 · 0%AU 2172 · 0%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

David H Tan maintains a public record across 6 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 102 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate stands at 33%. This reflects 34 allowed applications against 68 abandonments. The examiner's allowance rate ranges from 29% to 34% across these art units, indicating variation in outcomes by subject area within the technology center. This pooled record aggregates activity across multiple art units and does not predict outcomes in any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled, cross-art-unit record combines statistics from multiple art units into a single aggregate profile. The figures—allowance rate, application counts, and the range across units—describe the examiner's past decisions across different subject areas within TC 2100. The aggregate allowance rate is a historical snapshot, not a prediction for any pending or future application. The range reflects natural variation among different art units and does not indicate performance quality.

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 2145
80 APPS · 34% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

34% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION11 / 21 / 48allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.1 moart unit avg 26.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY53.3 moart unit avg 45.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility41% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness52%
ART UNIT 2171
48 APPS · 29% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
29% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 56%
DISPOSITION14 / 34 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16 moart unit avg 22 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.4 moart unit avg 37.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility27% · art unit 38%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness60%

Based on 48 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2177
11 APPS · 27% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
27% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION3 / 8 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION14.2 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY53.6 moart unit avg 40.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility27% · art unit 40%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness55%

Based on 11 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2141
9 APPS · 67% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

67% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION6 / 3 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.3 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY31.5 moart unit avg 47.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility38% · art unit 49%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)88%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness38%

Based on 9 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2142
1 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 45%
DISPOSITION0 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION15.7 moart unit avg 30.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.5 moart unit avg 48.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0% · art unit 57%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness100%

Based on 1 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2172
1 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION0 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.3 moart unit avg 24.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48 moart unit avg 44.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%

Based on 1 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner David H Tan

  • What is David H Tan's overall allowance rate?
    33% across 102 disposed applications (34 allowed, 68 abandoned), pooled across all art units in which the examiner has a record.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    6 art units: 2141, 2142, 2145, 2171, 2172, and 2177, all within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 29% to 34% across the examiner's art units. Per-art-unit detail is available in a separate section of this profile.
  • What do these figures mean for my application?
    This pooled record describes the examiner's past decisions and is not a prediction of the outcome of any specific application. Each application is examined on its individual merits.
◈ 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 H Tan 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: 150 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