Examiner Alicia Baturay has allowed 14 of 72 decided applications (19%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Examiner Alicia Baturay maintains a public record across 2 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 72 disposed applications, the examiner issued 14 allowances and 58 abandonments, yielding a 19% allowance rate. This rate reflects the examiner's pooled record across art units 2146 and 2155. The allowance rate describes historical outcomes on decided cases and does not forecast results on any individual application.
This pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units within TC 2100, combining different subject areas into a single allowance figure. The 19% rate is a historical summary of all decided applications across those units and reflects past dispositions only. Pooled data masks variation by art unit; a separate section of this page provides per-unit detail. Aggregate figures are not predictions for any specific case.
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 →
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.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Alicia Baturay 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: 72 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