LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/CHENG YUAN TSENG
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Cheng Yuan Tseng

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 966 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION FEB 2025
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Cheng Yuan Tseng has allowed 808 of 966 decided applications (84%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

84% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2184 · 77%AU 2182 · 93%AU 2132 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Cheng Yuan Tseng maintains a public record across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 966 disposed applications, the examiner issued allowances in 808 cases, yielding an 84% allowance rate. The allowance rate across the examiner's art units ranges from 77% to 93%, reflecting variation in outcomes among the three art units served. This pooled figure represents decided applications only and does not include pending matters.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's performance across multiple art units, masking individual unit variation. The overall allowance rate describes historical outcomes on decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's fate. The range shown (77% to 93%) indicates that outcomes differ by art unit. This data is correlational—it shows what occurred, not what will occur in any future case.

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 2184
568 APPS · 77% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines interconnection and data transfer between memory, I/O, and processing units.

77% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 78%
DISPOSITION437 / 131 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21 moart unit avg 20.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.4 moart unit avg 31.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20% · art unit 17%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)63%
§103 — Obviousness46% · art unit 75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness37%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW89%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW68%+21 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 251 decided applications with an interview and 317 without.

ART UNIT 2182
397 APPS · 93% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines data-processing methods for specific functions, and processing data by its order or content.

93% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION370 / 27 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION14.8 moart unit avg 24.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY23.5 moart unit avg 37.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility11% · art unit 31%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)80%
§103 — Obviousness25% · art unit 76%
§112 — Written description & definiteness38%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW97%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW91%+6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 144 decided applications with an interview and 253 without.

ART UNIT 2132
1 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION1 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.7 moart unit avg 27.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCYart unit avg 41 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0% · art unit 21%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)0%
§103 — Obviousness0% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness100%

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

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Cheng Yuan Tseng

  • What is Examiner Tseng's overall allowance rate?
    84% on 966 disposed applications across all three art units in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Three art units: 2132, 2182, and 2184, all within Technology Center 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the art units?
    Allowance rates range from 77% to 93% across the examiner's art units.
  • Does the pooled rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. This pooled record describes past decisions on decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific 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 Cheng Yuan Tseng 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: 966 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