LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/I CHAN YANG
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner I Chan Yang

TECH CENTER 2100 · 1 ART UNIT · 51 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2011
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT

Examiner I Chan Yang has allowed 35 of 51 decided applications (69%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

69% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner I Chan Yang's public record spans Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 51 disposed applications, 35 were allowed and 16 were abandoned, yielding an allowance rate of 69%. This rate represents decisions on applications that have reached final disposition; it does not include pending cases. The examiner's record is drawn from a single art unit, meaning the figures reflect a pooled decision history within one classification group rather than aggregation across multiple distinct areas.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates all applications and dispositions across the examiner's assigned art units. The allowance rate—here 69% over 51 decided cases—describes historical outcomes and is not a prediction for any individual application. Different art units within TC 2100 may carry distinct complexity or prosecution patterns. Pooled figures offer a statistical snapshot of past decisions; they do not forecast results on a specific filing.

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 2178
51 APPS · 69% ALLOWANCE
69% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 54%
DISPOSITION35 / 16 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION36.5 moart unit avg 25.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY44.8 moart unit avg 41.3 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner I Chan Yang

  • What is Examiner I Chan Yang's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 69%, based on 51 disposed applications (35 allowed, 16 abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    This examiner's record spans 1 art unit.
  • What technology center does Examiner I Chan Yang examine?
    Examiner I Chan Yang examines applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • Does this allowance rate apply to my application?
    This rate reflects historical dispositions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Each case is examined individually.
◈ 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 I Chan Yang 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: 51 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