LYNCH·LLP
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Chie W Yew

TECH CENTER 2100 · 2 ART UNITS · 394 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS

Examiner Chie W Yew has allowed 323 of 394 decided applications (82%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

82% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2139 · 95%AU 2131 · 53%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Chie W Yew maintains a public record across two art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 394 disposed applications, the examiner allowed 323, yielding an 82% allowance rate. The examiner's record spans art units 2131 and 2139. Allowance rates across these art units range from 53% to 95%, reflecting variation in the examiner's decisions within TC 2100. Of 422 total applications on record, 71 were abandoned. This pooled figure describes the examiner's historical record and does not predict outcomes in any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates decisions across multiple art units in TC 2100. The 82% allowance rate reflects the examiner's historical rate of allowed applications among all decided cases—a retrospective measure of the pooled record. Because this figure spans different art units with different allowance rates (53% to 95%), it represents an average across distinct examination contexts. Historical pooled rates do not forecast the outcome of any individual application or provide a basis for prosecution strategy.

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 2139
300 APPS · 95% ALLOWANCE

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

95% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION258 / 14 / 28allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION15.3 moart unit avg 24 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY24.8 moart unit avg 37.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility29% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)52%
§103 — Obviousness76% · art unit 80%
§112 — Written description & definiteness59%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW96%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW90%+6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 224 decided applications with an interview and 48 without.

ART UNIT 2131
122 APPS · 53% ALLOWANCE

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

53% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 56%
DISPOSITION65 / 57 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.8 moart unit avg 26.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.7 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility43% · art unit 29%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)64%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness92%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW68%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW31%+37 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 73 decided applications with an interview and 49 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Chie W Yew

  • What is Examiner Chie W Yew's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner allowed 323 of 394 disposed applications, an 82% allowance rate. This rate aggregates decisions across two art units and describes the examiner's historical record only.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner's public record covers two art units (2131 and 2139) within Technology Center 2100.
  • Do allowance rates vary across this examiner's art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 53% to 95%, indicating variation in the examiner's decisions within different examination areas of TC 2100.
  • How many applications total are in this record?
    The examiner's record includes 422 total applications. Of those, 394 were disposed (allowed or abandoned), and 71 were abandoned.
◈ 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 Chie W Yew 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: 422 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