LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/RONGFA PHILIP WANG
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Rongfa Philip Wang

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 983 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 Rongfa Philip Wang has allowed 872 of 983 decided applications (89%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

89% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2199 · 95%AU 2197 · 90%AU 2191 · 72%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Rongfa Philip Wang maintains a public record across three art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 983 decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 89%. The allowance rate—the percentage of applications allowed or abandoned among those with a final disposition—is based on 872 allowed and 111 abandoned applications. Across the three art units, allowance rates range from 72% to 95%, reflecting variation in the examiner's record within TC 2100.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates an examiner's performance across multiple art units within a single technology center. Pooled figures describe historical outcomes across all assigned art units combined. An aggregate allowance rate is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome and does not account for differences in application quality, examiner assignment patterns, or case-specific circumstances. Individual art-unit records may vary.

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 2199
466 APPS · 95% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines software engineering, and program control and execution.

95% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION411 / 23 / 32allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.9 moart unit avg 25.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY22.7 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility25% · art unit 48%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)43%
§103 — Obviousness61% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness67%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW96%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW94%+2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 137 decided applications with an interview and 297 without.

ART UNIT 2197
375 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution, and software engineering.

90% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 69%
DISPOSITION336 / 39 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.7 moart unit avg 26 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY31.6 moart unit avg 44.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility51% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)57%
§103 — Obviousness60% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness68%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW87%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW90%-3 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 53 decided applications with an interview and 322 without.

ART UNIT 2191
174 APPS · 72% ALLOWANCE

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

72% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 76%
DISPOSITION125 / 49 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION37.8 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY56.5 moart unit avg 41.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility75% · art unit 52%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)50%
§103 — Obviousness25% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness50%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW82%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW66%+16 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 61 decided applications with an interview and 113 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Rongfa Philip Wang

  • What is Rongfa Philip Wang's overall allowance rate?
    89% over 983 decided applications in Technology Center 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Three art units: 2191, 2197, and 2199.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 72% to 95% across the three art units.
◈ 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 Rongfa Philip Wang 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: 1,015 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