LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/CESAR B PAULA
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Cesar B Paula

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 270 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAY 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Cesar B Paula has allowed 95 of 270 decided applications (35%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

35% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2178 · 46%AU 2177 · 12%AU 2145 · 74%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Cesar B Paula maintains a public record spanning three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 270 decided applications, the examiner has allowed 95, yielding an overall allowance rate of 35 percent. This pooled figure reflects work across art units 2145, 2177, and 2178. Allowance rates within individual art units range from 12 percent to 74 percent, reflecting variation in examination outcomes across the different art-unit assignments. The record covers 293 total applications, of which 175 were abandoned.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data from multiple art units and presents the examiner's historical allowance rate as a single figure. The 35 percent rate describes past decisions across 270 closed cases and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Variation in allowance rates across individual art units (12–74 percent) illustrates that outcomes differ by art-unit assignment. Pooled statistics describe historical patterns only and do not forecast results in particular matters.

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 2178
144 APPS · 46% ALLOWANCE
46% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 54%
DISPOSITION66 / 78 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION32.2 moart unit avg 25.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY60.2 moart unit avg 41.3 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW60%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW38%+22 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 52 decided applications with an interview and 92 without.

ART UNIT 2177
103 APPS · 12% ALLOWANCE
12% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION12 / 91 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.5 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48.3 moart unit avg 40.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility36% · art unit 40%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)78%
§103 — Obviousness93% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness58%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW17%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW9%+8 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 36 decided applications with an interview and 67 without.

ART UNIT 2145
46 APPS · 74% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

74% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION17 / 6 / 23allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION33.8 moart unit avg 26.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY44 moart unit avg 45.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility73% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)69%
§103 — Obviousness91% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness56%

Based on 46 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Cesar B Paula

  • What is Examiner Paula's overall allowance rate?
    35 percent, calculated from 95 allowed applications out of 270 decided applications pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Three art units (2145, 2177, 2178) within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the examiner's art units?
    Allowance rates range from 12 percent to 74 percent across the individual art units.
  • What does the pooled allowance rate tell me?
    It describes the examiner's historical record across all assigned art units combined. It is not a prediction for any particular application.
◈ 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 Cesar B Paula 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: 293 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