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

Examiner Hang Pan

TECH CENTER 2100 · 2 ART UNITS · 700 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS

Examiner Hang Pan has allowed 531 of 700 decided applications (76%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

76% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2193 · 82%AU 2197 · 65%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Hang Pan maintains a public record across two art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 700 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate stands at 76%, calculated from 531 allowed applications and 169 abandonments. This rate is the ratio of allowed to all decided applications in the pooled record. The allowance rate across the examiner's art units ranges from 65% to 82%, reflecting variation in outcomes across different subject-matter areas within TC 2100. The record spans art units 2193 and 2197.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units and represents historical disposition data only. Allowance rates describe past outcomes across decided applications and are not predictions for any specific case. An examiner's record typically varies across art units due to differences in technology, statutory requirements, and application complexity. The range shown reflects this internal variation. Pooled figures describe overall patterns and do not forecast any individual application's path.

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 2193
494 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines software engineering, and error detection, correction, and monitoring.

82% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 70%
DISPOSITION371 / 81 / 42allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.7 moart unit avg 30.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY30.5 moart unit avg 44 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility38% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)16%
§103 — Obviousness89% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness33%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW89%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW75%+14 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 240 decided applications with an interview and 212 without.

ART UNIT 2197
248 APPS · 65% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution, and software engineering.

65% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 69%
DISPOSITION160 / 88 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION31.5 moart unit avg 26 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY57 moart unit avg 44.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility47% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)22%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness27%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW80%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW44%+36 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 142 decided applications with an interview and 106 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Hang Pan

  • What is Examiner Hang Pan's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 76%, based on 531 allowed applications and 169 abandonments across 700 disposed applications in the pooled record.
  • How many art units does Examiner Pan cover?
    The examiner has a public record spanning two art units in TC 2100: art units 2193 and 2197.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 65% to 82% across the examiner's art units, indicating variation in outcomes by subject matter within the technology center.
  • What does this pooled record mean for my application?
    The pooled record describes historical dispositions and is not a prediction for any specific application. Individual outcomes depend on the claims, prior art, statutory issues, and art-unit assignment of each case.
◈ 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 Hang Pan 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: 742 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