LYNCH·LLP
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Adam Lee

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 877 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Adam Lee has allowed 768 of 877 decided applications (88%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

88% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2193 · 88%AU 2196 · 83%AU 2198 · 93%AU 2195 · 79%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Adam Lee has a public record spanning 4 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 877 decided applications, he has allowed 768, yielding an overall allowance rate of 88%. The allowance rate ranges from 79% to 93% across these art units, reflecting variation in the record by subject matter and art-unit composition. This pooled figure aggregates his work across multiple art units and represents historical disposition data only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled, cross-art-unit record aggregates an examiner's decisions across multiple subject areas. The overall allowance rate describes past dispositions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Variation across art units (shown as a range) reflects differences in subject matter, applicant pools, and case complexity. Pooled figures are useful for understanding an examiner's broad record but do not apply uniformly to every art unit or 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 2193
504 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE

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

88% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 70%
DISPOSITION445 / 59 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.1 moart unit avg 30.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.9 moart unit avg 44 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility63% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)98%
§103 — Obviousness85% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness60%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW95%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW36%+59 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 445 decided applications with an interview and 59 without.

ART UNIT 2196
217 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

83% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION181 / 36 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION32.1 moart unit avg 27.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.5 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility52% · art unit 44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)60%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness45%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW91%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW73%+18 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 125 decided applications with an interview and 92 without.

ART UNIT 2198
191 APPS · 93% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

93% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 83%
DISPOSITION123 / 9 / 59allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26 moart unit avg 25.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.2 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility69% · art unit 50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)96%
§103 — Obviousness85% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness57%
ART UNIT 2195
24 APPS · 79% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines program control and execution.

79% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION19 / 5 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION50.4 moart unit avg 33.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY57.7 moart unit avg 48.3 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Adam Lee

  • What is Adam Lee's overall allowance rate?
    88% across 877 decided applications in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    Four art units (2193, 2195, 2196, 2198) within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 79% to 93% across these art units.
  • Is the pooled allowance rate a prediction for my application?
    No. This figure describes past dispositions 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 Adam Lee 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: 936 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