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

Examiner Aimee J Li

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 426 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION AUG 2025
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Aimee J Li has allowed 321 of 426 decided applications (75%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

75% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2183 · 63%AU 2195 · 100%AU 2137 · 93%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Aimee J Li maintains a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 426 disposed applications, the overall allowance rate is 75%, reflecting 321 allowed and 105 abandoned applications. The allowance rate varies across the examiner's art units, ranging from 63% to 100%. This pooled figure aggregates work spanning art units 2137, 2183, and 2195 and describes the examiner's historical record without predicting outcomes in any individual case.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This page presents a pooled record aggregating three separate art units within TC 2100. Aggregate allowance rates describe historical data across multiple art units and are not predictions for specific applications. The range (63% to 100%) reflects variation among the individual art units but does not identify which rate belongs to which unit—that detail appears in the per-art-unit section. Pooled figures provide context on overall output but do not forecast any single prosecution outcome.

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 2183
284 APPS · 63% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

63% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION180 / 104 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.3 moart unit avg 25 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY49.9 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility31% · art unit 34%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)59%
§103 — Obviousness80% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness28%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW60%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW64%-4 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 43 decided applications with an interview and 241 without.

ART UNIT 2195
134 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION128 / 0 / 6allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.5 moart unit avg 33.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCYart unit avg 48.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility45% · art unit 49%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)60%
§103 — Obviousness79% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness26%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW100%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW100%0 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 27 decided applications with an interview and 101 without.

ART UNIT 2137
14 APPS · 93% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

93% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 68%
DISPOSITION13 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.1 moart unit avg 25.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY51.9 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility21% · art unit 25%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)57%
§103 — Obviousness79% · art unit 85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness43%

Based on 14 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Aimee J Li

  • What is Examiner Aimee J Li's allowance rate?
    The overall allowance rate is 75%, calculated over 426 decided applications (321 allowed, 105 abandoned). This is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Examiner Li has a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security): art units 2137, 2183, and 2195.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 63% to 100% across the examiner's art units. Individual art-unit rates are shown in the per-art-unit section of this page.
  • What does the pooled record represent?
    The pooled record aggregates all 426 decided applications across the three art units. It describes past output and does not predict outcomes in any individual case.
◈ 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 Aimee J Li 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: 432 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