LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/DEBBIE M LE
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Debbie M Le

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 1,117 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 Debbie M Le has allowed 990 of 1,117 decided applications (89%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

89% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2168 · 90%AU 2167 · 67%AU 2177 · 72%AU 2161 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Debbie M Le maintains a public record across 4 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 1,117 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 89%. This rate reflects 990 allowed applications and 127 abandoned applications. The allowance rate varies across the examiner's art units, ranging from 67% to 90%. The pooled figure aggregates outcomes across all four art units and describes the examiner's historical record only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data from multiple art units into a single profile. The overall allowance rate of 89% describes past outcomes across all art units combined and does not predict the result of any specific application. The range (67% to 90%) shows variation among individual art units but does not identify which rate applies to any particular unit. Pooled statistics are correlational summaries of historical dispositions, not causal indicators or forecasts.

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
1,074 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

90% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION948 / 108 / 18allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.5 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.6 moart unit avg 43.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility29% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)68%
§103 — Obviousness58% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness11%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW96%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW85%+11 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 445 decided applications with an interview and 611 without.

ART UNIT 2167
42 APPS · 67% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

67% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION28 / 14 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29.2 moart unit avg 24.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY44.4 moart unit avg 41.2 mo
ART UNIT 2177
18 APPS · 72% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
72% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION13 / 5 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.5 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY27.7 moart unit avg 40.7 mo
ART UNIT 2161
1 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 62%
DISPOSITION1 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.7 moart unit avg 23.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY31.5 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility100% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%

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

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Debbie M Le

  • What is Examiner Debbie M Le's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 89% over 1,117 disposed applications. This figure pools outcomes across 4 art units and describes the historical record only; it is not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner has a public record spanning 4 art units in TC 2100: art units 2161, 2167, 2168, and 2177.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 67% to 90% across the examiner's art units. The pooled overall rate of 89% aggregates these separate figures and does not identify the rate within any specific art unit.
◈ 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 Debbie M Le 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: 1,135 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