Patent examiner statistics, free for every USPTO examiner.

Allowance rates, difficulty, rejection patterns, interview and RCE effectiveness, and contact details, computed from USPTO Patent Center (formerly PAIR). Then turn that history into your office action response inside AI Studio.

16,000+

examiners tracked

3.3M+

office actions indexed

6+ yrs

of prosecution history

Look up any USPTO patent examiner

A patent examiner's allowance rate is the share of their disposed applications that issue as patents. Across the USPTO it runs from under 20% to over 95%, so looking up your examiner, their rejection patterns, and how interviews and RCEs have performed on their docket is the fastest way to read the odds before you respond to an office action.

Source USPTO Patent Center (formerly PAIR). Public profiles use filing years 2021–2026, refreshed regularly. The full dataset in AI Studio covers 6+ years. How the statistics work.

Examiner		Technology		Difficulty
Alejandro Valencia	2853	Inkjet Printheads, Ink Supply, Inks & Recording Media	36.0%	Extremely Hard	470
Nizal S. Chandrakumar	1625	Heterocyclic Drug Compounds & Medicinal Chemistry	75.3%	Hard	474
Michael Forrest	1738	Powder Metallurgy, Steel, Metal Recovery & Inorganic Compounds	84.7%	Average	219
Bijan Ahvazi	1763	Synthetic Resins & Coating Compositions	80.0%	Average	347
Woo Kyung Lee	2815	Semiconductor Transistors, Memory, LEDs & Packaging	86.2%	Average	271
Mohammed S. Alawadi	3725	Metal Deforming, Comminution & Presses	85.5%	Average	582
Cameron Kenneth Miller	1731	Ceramic, Glass & Inorganic Compositions	82.0%	Average	370
Robert Franklin Long	3731	Package Making, Staplers & Power Tools	75.8%	Hard	304
Sheng Han Davis	1732	Catalysts, Inorganic Compounds & Coating Compositions	82.9%	Average	325
Claire A. Norris	1779	Water Treatment, Membranes, Filters & Liquid Separation	83.9%	Average	299
Daniel Petkovsek	2874	Optical Waveguides, Fiber Optics & Integrated Photonics	90.7%	Favorable	512
Michael C. Miggins	1782	Containers, Tubes, Laminates & Optical Films	83.0%	Average	400
Jason E. Flick	3783	Medical Injectors, Catheters & Infusion Pumps	88.4%	Average	249
Hovhannes Baghdasaryan	3645	Lidar & Sonar Ranging Systems	83.5%	Average	368
Raymond Alejandro	1752	Batteries, Fuel Cells & Electrochemical Apparatus	88.8%	Average	426
Telly D. Green	2898	Semiconductor Power & Logic Transistors, Packaging & Displays	90.7%	Favorable	398
Zaihan Jiang	2488	Video Coding, Compression & Camera Systems	91.6%	Favorable	394
Ida M. Soward	2898	Semiconductor Power & Logic Transistors, Packaging & Displays	96.9%	Favorable	492
Kyle Walraed-Sullivan	3635	Static Structures & Building Construction	77.6%	Hard	404
Hilary L. Gutman	3612	Land Vehicle Bodies, Tops & Fenders	74.1%	Hard	300
Daniel S. Gatewood	1729	Battery Electrodes, Thermal Management & Housings	87.1%	Average	385
Joseph G. Dauner	1682	Nucleic Acid Assays & Disease Biomarkers	71.3%	Hard	217
Dzung Tran	2893	Semiconductor Transistors, Packaging & OLED Displays	85.5%	Average	371
Robert S. Walters Jr.	1717	Coating Apparatus, Coating Processes & Vapor Deposition	60.6%	Very Hard	304
Alexander R. Niconovich	3711	Golf & Ball Sports Equipment, Toys, Games & Archery	79.4%	Average	443
Justin R. Fischer	1749	Tire Treads, Sidewalls, Belts, Beads, Building & Curing	41.9%	Extremely Hard	370
Christopher E. Dunay	2875	Luminaires, Vehicle Lamps, Light Guides & OLED Displays	91.9%	Favorable	588
Vu A. Vu	2897	Semiconductor Packaging, Transistors, OLED Displays & Memory	95.9%	Favorable	534
Erin Barry Saad	1735	Welding, Metal Bonding & Powder Metallurgy	89.1%	Average	401
Nahida Sultana	1743	Additive Manufacturing & Plastics Shaping	86.1%	Average	390
Sean P. Cullen	1725	Fuel Cells, Batteries & Cell Fabrication	72.1%	Hard	295
Dennis H. Pedder	3612	Land Vehicle Bodies, Tops & Fenders	91.0%	Favorable	631
Karl J. Puttlitz	1646	Immunology, Antibodies & Bio-Affecting Compositions	67.7%	Hard	303
Jessica Whiteley	1763	Synthetic Resins & Coating Compositions	89.9%	Average	492
Mamadou Faye	2884	Radiant Energy & X-Ray / Gamma-Ray Systems & Devices	87.2%	Average	508
Matthew J. Daniels	1742	Plastics Shaping, Additive Manufacturing & Composites	81.3%	Average	354
Shibin Liang	1741	Plastics Shaping & Glass Manufacturing	63.9%	Hard	290
Nathan L. Van Sell	1783	Laminates, Films, Glass, Ceramics & Coated Articles	62.7%	Very Hard	295
Pancham Bakshi	1623	Carbohydrates, Medicinal Chemistry & Bio-Affecting Compositions	68.0%	Hard	393
Frank S. Hou	1692	Organometallic & Industrial Organic Chemistry	67.5%	Hard	234

Just got an office action. Put your examiner's history to work.

The free profiles show you how an examiner rules. AI Studio helps you respond. Open your office action in the office action response workflow and draft with this examiner's and art unit's record in view, the rejections they issue, the arguments that have overcome them, and how interviews and RCEs have actually played out on their docket.

Takes the examiner into account

Every response starts from how this examiner and art unit have ruled, not generic boilerplate.

Ask anything about your examiner

AI Studio reads the full prosecution dataset behind these profiles, so you can interrogate the patterns in plain English.

Weigh your options with the data

Weigh an interview, an RCE, or a claim amendment against what has actually worked on this docket.

Open AI Studio free See how office action responses work

Included with your free trial.

Historical patterns shown for general information. This is not legal advice and does not predict the outcome of any application. Decisions about interviews, RCEs, and claim strategy rest with you and a licensed patent attorney or agent.

The full examiner dataset behind every profile

The public profiles are a slice. The complete Prosecution Intel dataset powers your AI Studio drafts and is searchable on its own, computed from USPTO file wrappers, not scraped summaries.

Examiner statistics

Allowance rate, average office actions, days to first action, RCE rate, interview rate, and recent dispositions for every active examiner.

Art units and tech centers

Aggregate allowance, pendency, and RCE behavior across every art unit and technology center. Spot units that run tougher before you file.

Applicant insights

Prosecution behavior for 30,000+ assignees. See how competitors are actually performing in front of the USPTO.

Rejection analytics

How often an examiner drops a section 103 when pushed. Overcame versus maintained rates per section, year by year.

Interview and RCE effectiveness

Allowance rate with an interview versus without, and the same for RCEs. Per examiner, per year, so you know whether it is worth the cost.

Office action library

Read the full rejection text from 3.3M+ office actions. Search for the exact phrasing an examiner keeps reusing.

Responses, amendments, and track changes

Pull the full remarks, amendments, and a claim by claim redline for any office action response in the file wrapper.

AI search

Ask plain-English questions like examiners in TC 2800 with over 80 percent allowance and low RCE use, and get an instant filtered answer.

How it works

Search by examiner name or art unit and open a free public profile.

Read the allowance rate, difficulty, rejection patterns, and interview and RCE effectiveness for that examiner.

Open your office action in the office action response workflow in AI Studio and draft your response with this examiner’s and art unit’s history in view, including the arguments that have overcome their rejections.

Refine the draft, weigh an interview or an RCE against what has actually worked, and take a data-backed response into your filing.

Browse by technology center.

Every examiner belongs to an art unit inside one of nine USPTO technology centers, and difficulty varies widely between them. Public profiles so far cover 40 high-volume examiners across 6 technology centers, and AI Studio covers every examiner.

Tech Center 1600

Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry

Tech Center 1700

Chemical & Materials Engineering

Tech Center 2100

Computer Architecture & Software

Tech Center 2400

Networking, Multiplexing, Cable & Security

Tech Center 2600

Communications

Tech Center 2800

Semiconductors, Electrical & Optical Systems

Tech Center 2900

Designs

Tech Center 3600

Transportation, Construction, Agriculture & e-Commerce

Tech Center 3700

Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing & Medical Devices

Simple pricing. No surprises.

Choose monthly or yearly billing. Full access to all tools on every plan.

See Full Pricing

Frequently asked questions.

What is a patent examiner's allowance rate?

The share of an examiner's disposed applications that issued as patents (sometimes called grant rate). Individual examiners range from under 20% to over 95%, which is why looking up your examiner matters before you respond.

How do I find out who my patent examiner is?

The examiner's name appears on the first page of every office action, and in USPTO Patent Center under your application once it is docketed to an art unit.

Where does this examiner data come from?

Public profile statistics are computed from USPTO Patent Center (formerly PAIR) file wrappers for the last five full filing years plus the current one, and refreshed regularly. The public profiles are a slice of the full examiner dataset in AI Studio, which covers 6+ years of prosecution history.

Are these examiner statistics free?

Yes. Public examiner profiles are free with no login. The full dataset, AI search, and office action responses in AI Studio with the examiner's and art unit's history in view are part of the paid plans, which you can try on a free trial.

Can AI Studio help me respond to an office action using my examiner’s history?

Yes. The office action response workflow in AI Studio shows how your examiner and art unit have handled rejections like yours and which arguments and amendments moved them. You draft the response with tracked changes and stay the author.

Pull up your examiner before you respond.

Every USPTO examiner, full file-wrapper detail, and office action responses in AI Studio with the examiner's and art unit's history in view, in one workspace.

Start free

Examiner statistics are compiled from public USPTO records (Patent Center) for informational purposes only. They describe historical prosecution patterns, are not legal advice, and do not predict outcomes in any specific matter. Consult a licensed patent attorney or agent about your application.