LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/OLVIN LOPEZ ALVAREZ
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Olvin Lopez Alvarez

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 535 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Olvin Lopez Alvarez has allowed 263 of 535 decided applications (49%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

49% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2117 · 55%AU 2121 · 43%AU 2125 · 47%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Olvin Lopez Alvarez maintains a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 535 disposed applications, his allowance rate is 49%. This reflects 263 allowed applications and 272 abandoned applications. The allowance rate across his art units ranges from 43% to 55%, indicating variation in outcomes by subject area within TC 2100. This pooled figure aggregates his activity across all three art units and describes his historical record; it is not a prediction for any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record combines outcomes across multiple art units within TC 2100. Aggregate allowance rates describe past dispositions and do not predict outcomes in individual cases. The range shown (43% to 55%) reflects differences among art units; the overall 49% rate is a mathematical average across all three units. Historical statistics are correlational, not causal—they describe what occurred, not why or what will occur in future applications.

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 2117
280 APPS · 55% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines control or regulating systems.

55% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 74%
DISPOSITION133 / 107 / 40allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.8 moart unit avg 20.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.4 moart unit avg 33.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility44% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)60%
§103 — Obviousness87% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness81%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW67%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW35%+32 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 156 decided applications with an interview and 84 without.

ART UNIT 2121
233 APPS · 43% ALLOWANCE

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

43% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION101 / 132 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.1 moart unit avg 27 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.4 moart unit avg 39.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility39% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness85%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW69%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW31%+38 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 77 decided applications with an interview and 156 without.

ART UNIT 2125
62 APPS · 47% ALLOWANCE

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

47% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 75%
DISPOSITION29 / 33 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.8 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY49.7 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility44% · art unit 50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)75%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness89%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW67%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW5%+62 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 42 decided applications with an interview and 20 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Olvin Lopez Alvarez

  • What is Examiner Alvarez's overall allowance rate?
    49% across 535 disposed applications in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    3 art units (2117, 2121, 2125) within Technology Center 2100.
  • How much variation exists across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 43% to 55% among the three art units.
  • What does this pooled rate mean for my application?
    This historical aggregate does not predict any individual application's outcome. It describes past dispositions only.
◈ 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 Olvin Lopez Alvarez 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: 575 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