LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Alicia M Willoughby

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 568 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 Alicia M Willoughby has allowed 315 of 568 decided applications (55%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

55% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2167 · 56%AU 2164 · 38%AU 2156 · 96%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Alicia M Willoughby maintains a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 568 disposed applications, she has allowed 315 and seen 253 abandoned, for an overall allowance rate of 55%. The allowance rate across her art units ranges from 38% to 96%, reflecting variation in outcomes within TC 2100. This pooled figure represents the aggregate record and does not isolate performance in any single art unit or predict outcomes in individual applications.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates three separate art units within TC 2100. A pooled allowance rate describes the examiner's past decisions across all units combined and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The range from 38% to 96% across art units shows that outcomes vary by subject matter within her portfolio. The overall 55% rate is calculated from decided cases only, excluding pending applications.

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 2167
326 APPS · 56% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

56% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION184 / 142 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.9 moart unit avg 24.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.6 moart unit avg 41.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility51% · art unit 43%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)62%
§103 — Obviousness87% · art unit 75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness56%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW64%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW46%+18 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 188 decided applications with an interview and 138 without.

ART UNIT 2164
173 APPS · 38% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

38% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 62%
DISPOSITION65 / 108 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26 moart unit avg 22.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY51 moart unit avg 43.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility60% · art unit 58%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)47%
§103 — Obviousness88% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness49%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW59%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW25%+34 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 63 decided applications with an interview and 110 without.

ART UNIT 2156
112 APPS · 96% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

96% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 69%
DISPOSITION66 / 3 / 43allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.7 moart unit avg 20.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY27.2 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility66% · art unit 56%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)55%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness54%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW95%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW96%-1 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 43 decided applications with an interview and 26 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Alicia M Willoughby

  • What is Examiner Willoughby's overall allowance rate?
    The overall allowance rate is 55%, based on 568 disposed applications (315 allowed, 253 abandoned). This is a historical record and is not a prediction for any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Willoughby has a public record spanning 3 art units (2156, 2164, 2167) in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • What is the range of allowance rates across her art units?
    Allowance rates across her art units range from 38% to 96%. This range reflects variation in outcomes within TC 2100 but does not identify which rate applies to any specific art unit.
  • What does the pooled record mean?
    The pooled record aggregates all three art units. The 55% overall rate describes past decisions across all units combined. To see individual art-unit performance, refer to the per-art-unit section.
◈ 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 Alicia M Willoughby 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: 611 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