Examiner Di Xiao has allowed 500 of 639 decided applications (78%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Di Xiao maintains a public record of 679 total applications across 4 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 639 disposed applications, 500 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 78%. The examiner's record spans multiple art units (2141, 2175, 2178, 2179), and allowance rates across these units range from 65% to 92%. This pooled figure represents the aggregate of decided cases and does not reflect pending applications.
This profile reports the examiner's pooled allowance rate—the percentage of all decided (allowed and abandoned) applications across all four art units combined. A pooled record aggregates different subject areas and examiner assignments. The overall 78% rate describes historical outcomes and is not a prediction of any specific application's disposition. To understand performance in a particular art unit, consult the per-art-unit breakdown.
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 →
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.
Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 154 decided applications with an interview and 163 without.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 101 decided applications with an interview and 98 without.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 41 decided applications with an interview and 77 without.
Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.
Based on 5 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Di Xiao 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: 679 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