Examiner Cedric D Johnson has allowed 581 of 693 decided applications (84%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Cedric D Johnson has a public record across 5 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 693 disposed applications, the overall allowance rate is 84%, with 581 allowed and 112 abandoned. The allowance rate ranges from 71% to 93% across the art units in which this examiner has maintained a substantial record. This pooled figure aggregates decisions across multiple art units and represents the examiner's historical disposition rate, not a prediction for any particular application.
A pooled record combines data across multiple art units into a single aggregate profile. The overall allowance rate of 84% describes what occurred across 693 past decisions and does not forecast the outcome of any future application. The range (71% to 93%) reflects variation among the individual art units but does not identify which art unit produced which rate. Pooled figures are historical summaries; they do not predict individual case outcomes.
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 neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 128 decided applications with an interview and 124 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 79 decided applications with an interview and 85 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 100 decided applications with an interview and 61 without.
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 28 decided applications with an interview and 29 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Cedric D Johnson 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: 731 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