LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/CHEYNE D LY
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Cheyne D Ly

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 992 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Cheyne D Ly has allowed 738 of 992 decided applications (74%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

74% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2168 · 71%AU 2152 · 75%AU 2163 · 86%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Cheyne D Ly maintains a public record across three art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 992 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 74%. This figure represents 738 allowed applications and 254 abandoned applications in the examiner's pooled record. Across the three art units, allowance rates range from 71% to 86%, reflecting variation in the examiner's record across different areas within TC 2100.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units within TC 2100. The 74% allowance rate describes historical outcomes on decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's disposition. Pooled figures mask differences among individual art units; variation in allowance rates (71% to 86%) shows that outcomes differ by art unit. This data provides context on past record only.

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 2168
535 APPS · 71% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

71% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION381 / 154 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.7 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY50.4 moart unit avg 43.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility42% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)69%
§103 — Obviousness85% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness36%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW74%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW69%+5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 273 decided applications with an interview and 262 without.

ART UNIT 2152
338 APPS · 75% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

75% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION255 / 83 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.7 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY40.4 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility56% · art unit 62%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)83%
§103 — Obviousness81% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness63%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW79%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW71%+8 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 193 decided applications with an interview and 145 without.

ART UNIT 2163
154 APPS · 86% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

86% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 64%
DISPOSITION102 / 17 / 35allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.3 moart unit avg 23.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.4 moart unit avg 40.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility59% · art unit 51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)85%
§103 — Obviousness84% · art unit 78%
§112 — Written description & definiteness57%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW88%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW82%+6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 74 decided applications with an interview and 45 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Cheyne D Ly

  • What is Cheyne D Ly's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 74% over 992 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The record spans three art units in TC 2100: art units 2152, 2163, and 2168.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 71% to 86% across the examiner's three art units. This pooled figure of 74% aggregates these different rates and is not predictive of any individual application.
  • What does the allowance rate mean?
    The allowance rate is the percentage of decided (allowed and abandoned) applications. It does not include pending applications and is a description of past record, not a prediction.
◈ 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 Cheyne D Ly 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: 1,027 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