LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/AYESHA E HUERTAS TORRES
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Ayesha E Huertas Torres

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 216 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2019
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Ayesha E Huertas Torres has allowed 164 of 216 decided applications (76%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

76% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2172 · 76%AU 2179 · 83%AU 2186 · 0%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Ayesha E Huertas Torres has a public record of 216 disposed applications across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of these decided cases, 164 were allowed and 52 were abandoned, yielding an allowance rate of 76% across the pooled record. The examiner's allowance rate ranges from 76% to 83% across the art units in this technology center. This pooled figure reflects the aggregate of work across multiple distinct art units and does not predict outcomes in any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This profile aggregates the examiner's record across three separate art units in TC 2100. The 76% allowance rate is calculated from all decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) across those units combined. Allowance rates vary among art units—ranging from 76% to 83%—because different art units address different subject matter and application populations. Aggregate figures describe historical disposal patterns and are not predictions for any specific case or art unit.

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 2172
192 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE
76% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION145 / 47 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.2 moart unit avg 24.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.6 moart unit avg 44.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility51% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)81%
§103 — Obviousness87% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness39%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW87%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW65%+22 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 91 decided applications with an interview and 101 without.

ART UNIT 2179
23 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
83% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION19 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.9 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY31.8 moart unit avg 43.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility56% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)61%
§103 — Obviousness72% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness17%

Based on 23 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2186
1 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION0 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.3 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.3 moart unit avg 35 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%

Based on 1 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Ayesha E Huertas Torres

  • What is this examiner's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 76%, calculated from 164 allowed applications out of 216 total disposed applications across all art units in the examiner's record.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner has a public record spanning three art units (2172, 2179, 2186) within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate differ across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 76% to 83% across the examiner's art units. Individual art unit rates are detailed in the per-unit section of this page.
◈ 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 Ayesha E Huertas Torres 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: 216 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