LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/PEI YONG WENG
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Pei Yong Weng

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 699 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 Pei Yong Weng has allowed 570 of 699 decided applications (82%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

82% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2179 · 77%AU 2141 · 99%AU 2173 · 91%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Pei Yong Weng maintains a public record of 739 total applications across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 699 disposed applications, 570 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 82%. The examiner's allowance rate varies across art units, ranging from 77% to 99%. This pooled record reflects decisions made across multiple art units and does not indicate the outcome of any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, combining different subject areas and examination contexts. The overall allowance rate of 82% describes historical decisions on disposed applications and is not a prediction for any specific case. The range of 77% to 99% across art units reflects variation in the examiner's record by subject area. Pooled figures provide aggregate context only and do not determine the path or result of any particular application.

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 2179
528 APPS · 77% ALLOWANCE
77% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION404 / 124 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.6 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.4 moart unit avg 43.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility50% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)75%
§103 — Obviousness89% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness28%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW88%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW65%+23 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 269 decided applications with an interview and 259 without.

ART UNIT 2141
179 APPS · 99% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

99% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION137 / 2 / 40allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.1 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.2 moart unit avg 47.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility55% · art unit 49%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)53%
§103 — Obviousness74% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness46%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW99%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW99%0 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 67 decided applications with an interview and 72 without.

ART UNIT 2173
32 APPS · 91% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
91% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION29 / 3 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22 moart unit avg 25.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.8 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility34% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)59%
§103 — Obviousness93% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness45%

Based on 32 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Pei Yong Weng

  • What is Pei Yong Weng's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 82%, calculated from 570 allowed applications among 699 disposed applications. This is a historical figure and is not a prediction of the outcome of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Pei Yong Weng has a record across 3 art units within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 77% to 99% across the examiner's art units. This range reflects variation in the record by subject area but does not indicate the outcome of any particular application.
◈ 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 Pei Yong Weng 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: 739 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