LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/PHOEBE X PAN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Phoebe X Pan

TECH CENTER 2100 · 5 ART UNITS · 248 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAY 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 5 ART UNITS

Examiner Phoebe X Pan has allowed 117 of 248 decided applications (47%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

47% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2142 · 41%AU 2179 · 60%AU 2176 · 63%AU 2178 · 11%AU 2171 · 0%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Phoebe X Pan maintains a public record across five art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 248 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 47%. This rate reflects 117 allowed applications and 131 abandoned applications. The allowance rate varies across the art units served, ranging from 41% to 63%. The examiner's record spans art units 2142, 2171, 2176, 2178, and 2179 within TC 2100.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This profile aggregates Pan's record across five separate art units in TC 2100. The pooled allowance rate (47%) represents a historical average of decided outcomes and does not predict results in any particular application. Cross-art-unit records combine different subject matters and examination patterns; the range from 41% to 63% reflects variation among individual art units. These figures describe what has occurred, not what will occur.

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 2142
147 APPS · 41% ALLOWANCE

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

41% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 45%
DISPOSITION60 / 87 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.9 moart unit avg 30.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY60.4 moart unit avg 48.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility58% · art unit 57%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)62%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness62%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW53%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW11%+42 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 103 decided applications with an interview and 44 without.

ART UNIT 2179
78 APPS · 60% ALLOWANCE
60% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION27 / 18 / 33allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY42.9 moart unit avg 43.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility27% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)97%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness52%
ART UNIT 2176
46 APPS · 63% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

63% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 59%
DISPOSITION29 / 17 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.5 moart unit avg 23.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.5 moart unit avg 40.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility27% · art unit 41%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)86%
§103 — Obviousness89% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness52%

Based on 46 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2178
9 APPS · 11% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
11% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 54%
DISPOSITION1 / 8 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION13.6 moart unit avg 25.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.4 moart unit avg 41.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility11% · art unit 36%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness56%

Based on 9 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2171
1 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 56%
DISPOSITION0 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION33.6 moart unit avg 22 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY40.5 moart unit avg 37.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0% · art unit 38%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)0%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness100%

Based on 1 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Phoebe X Pan

  • What is Phoebe X Pan's overall allowance rate?
    47%, based on 248 disposed applications (117 allowed, 131 abandoned). This figure pools the examiner's record across all five art units in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Five art units: 2142, 2171, 2176, 2178, and 2179, all within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 41% to 63% across the examiner's art units. Separate data for each art unit is available in the detailed section of this page.
  • Is this allowance rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The 47% figure is a historical summary of past decisions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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 Phoebe X 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: 281 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