Examiner Cheneca Smith has allowed 322 of 461 decided applications (70%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Examiner Cheneca Smith maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security), spanning one art unit. The examiner has disposed of 461 applications, of which 322 were allowed and 139 abandoned. The allowance rate is 70% over the disposed applications. This pooled record reflects outcomes across all art units under the examiner's jurisdiction and describes past dispositions without predicting outcomes in any specific application.
This pooled record aggregates all art units under the examiner's jurisdiction and reflects historical dispositions. The allowance rate of 70% describes past outcomes across decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Pooled figures mask variation across individual art units; a separate detailed breakdown by art unit appears elsewhere on this page for more granular analysis.
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 software engineering.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 243 decided applications with an interview and 218 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Cheneca Smith 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: 500 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