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

Examiner David Phantana Angkool

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 969 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner David Phantana Angkool has allowed 838 of 969 decided applications (86%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

86% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2175 · 86%AU 2172 · 96%AU 2145 · 92%AU 2179 · 44%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

David Phantana Angkool maintains a public record across 4 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 969 disposed applications, he allowed 838, yielding an overall allowance rate of 86%. His record spans art units 2145, 2172, 2175, and 2179. Allowance rates across these art units range from 44% to 96%, reflecting variation in outcomes by art unit. This pooled figure aggregates results across all four units and describes his historical record only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record combines outcomes across multiple art units within TC 2100, masking unit-by-unit differences. The 86% allowance rate is computed from all disposed (decided) applications—allowed plus abandoned—and does not forecast any individual application's outcome. Aggregate historical figures describe past decisions and are not predictions. Detailed allowance rates for each separate art unit appear in the per-art-unit section of this profile.

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 2175
695 APPS · 86% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

86% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION595 / 100 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.6 moart unit avg 22.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.4 moart unit avg 37.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)76%
§103 — Obviousness63% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness4%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW96%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW82%+14 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 162 decided applications with an interview and 533 without.

ART UNIT 2172
237 APPS · 96% ALLOWANCE
96% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION193 / 8 / 36allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.6 moart unit avg 24.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY29.6 moart unit avg 44.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility29% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)73%
§103 — Obviousness74% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness8%
// 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 60 decided applications with an interview and 141 without.

ART UNIT 2145
37 APPS · 92% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

92% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION34 / 3 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION13.2 moart unit avg 26.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY23.3 moart unit avg 45.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility18% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness85% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness6%

Based on 37 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2179
36 APPS · 44% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
44% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION16 / 20 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION40 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY53.8 moart unit avg 43.3 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner David Phantana Angkool

  • What is David Phantana Angkool's overall allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 86%, based on 838 allowed applications among 969 total disposed applications pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    He maintains a record across 4 art units within TC 2100: 2145, 2172, 2175, and 2179.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 44% to 96% across the art units with substantial records. This variation reflects differences in outcomes by art unit.
  • Does the 86% rate apply to my specific application?
    No. The pooled allowance rate describes historical outcomes across all disposed applications and is not a prediction of 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 David Phantana Angkool 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: 1,005 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