LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/CHERYL RENEA LEWIS
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Cheryl Renea Lewis

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 1,515 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Cheryl Renea Lewis has allowed 1,433 of 1,515 decided applications (95%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

95% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2166 · 98%AU 2155 · 94%AU 2167 · 93%AU 2177 · 79%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Cheryl Renea Lewis has a public record of 1,538 total applications across 4 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 1,515 disposed applications, 1,433 were allowed, yielding a 95% allowance rate. The examiner's allowance rate varies across art units, ranging from 79% to 98%. This pooled record spans art units 2155, 2166, 2167, and 2177, and reflects outcomes on applications that have been decided (allowed or abandoned), excluding any pending filings.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units within TC 2100, representing the examiner's combined historical outcomes. The overall allowance rate of 95% describes past dispositions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The range of allowance rates (79% to 98%) reflects variation across different art units; individual application outcomes depend on claim content, prior art, and examination specifics. Pooled statistics describe aggregate history, not future cases.

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 2166
521 APPS · 98% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

98% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION488 / 10 / 23allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.6 moart unit avg 23.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY26.8 moart unit avg 45 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility32% · art unit 44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)77%
§103 — Obviousness49% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness14%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW99%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW97%+2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 140 decided applications with an interview and 358 without.

ART UNIT 2155
496 APPS · 94% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

94% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION464 / 32 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.4 moart unit avg 27.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY29.2 moart unit avg 42.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility41% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)66%
§103 — Obviousness29% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness12%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW98%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW92%+6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 165 decided applications with an interview and 331 without.

ART UNIT 2167
482 APPS · 93% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

93% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION450 / 32 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.2 moart unit avg 24.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY44.8 moart unit avg 41.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility50% · art unit 43%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)50%
§103 — Obviousness0% · art unit 75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness50%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW100%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW92%+8 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 99 decided applications with an interview and 383 without.

ART UNIT 2177
39 APPS · 79% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
79% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION31 / 8 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.3 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY26.7 moart unit avg 40.7 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Cheryl Renea Lewis

  • What is Cheryl Renea Lewis's overall allowance rate?
    95% of her 1,515 disposed applications were allowed. Disposed applications comprise those that were allowed or abandoned, excluding pending filings. This is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The public record spans 4 art units in TC 2100: art units 2155, 2166, 2167, and 2177.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across her art units?
    Allowance rates range from 79% to 98% across the examiner's art units. This variation reflects differences in subject matter and claim profiles within those units, not prediction of any individual case outcome.
◈ 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 Cheryl Renea Lewis 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: 1,538 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