Examiner Cheryl Maria Shechtman has allowed 321 of 438 decided applications (73%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Cheryl Maria Shechtman holds a public record of 470 total applications across six art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 438 disposed applications, 321 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 73%. The examiner's allowance rate varies across her art units, ranging from 59% to 92%. This pooled figure aggregates work across art units 2157, 2159, 2163, 2164, 2167, and 2169 and reflects outcomes on applications that have been decided; 117 applications were abandoned.
This pooled record aggregates allowance rates across multiple art units within TC 2100. The overall 73% figure describes past outcomes on decided applications and does not predict the result of any specific application. Variation across art units (59% to 92%) reflects the examiner's differing records in distinct subject areas within the technology center. Aggregate statistics are historical data and are not causal predictors of individual prosecution.
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 information retrieval and database structures.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 87 decided applications with an interview and 93 without.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 63 decided applications with an interview and 60 without.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 18 decided applications with an interview and 50 without.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Based on 32 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Cheryl Maria Shechtman 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: 470 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