LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/DOUGLAS S LEE
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Douglas S Lee

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 365 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION AUG 2014
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Douglas S Lee has allowed 308 of 365 decided applications (84%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

84% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2121 · 80%AU 2125 · 90%AU 2126 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Douglas S Lee maintains a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 365 disposed applications, 308 were allowed, yielding an 84% allowance rate. The allowance rate ranges from 80% to 90% across his art units. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes from multiple art units with different subject matter and examination contexts, each of which may operate at different rates. The 84% figure describes the examiner's historical record across all disposed cases and is not a prediction for any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's outcomes across multiple art units, combining different technology areas and examination populations into a single overall rate. The 84% allowance rate reflects past dispositions and describes this examiner's historical profile. Individual art units within TC 2100 show variation (ranging 80%–90%), which reflects differences in subject matter, applicant populations, or case complexity by unit. Pooled figures are descriptive of the past record only and are not predictions for any individual application.

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 2121
206 APPS · 80% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

80% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION164 / 42 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25 moart unit avg 27 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.4 moart unit avg 39.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility28% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)77%
§103 — Obviousness45% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness27%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW50%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW86%-36 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 36 decided applications with an interview and 170 without.

ART UNIT 2125
155 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

90% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 75%
DISPOSITION140 / 15 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY29.5 moart unit avg 39 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW55%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW96%-41 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 20 decided applications with an interview and 135 without.

ART UNIT 2126
4 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION4 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.5 moart unit avg 29.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.7 moart unit avg 44.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility25% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)75%
§103 — Obviousness50% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%

Based on 4 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Douglas S Lee

  • What is Douglas S Lee's overall allowance rate?
    84% across 365 disposed applications pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    3 art units (2121, 2125, 2126) within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 80% to 90% across the examiner's art units, indicating variation in outcomes by unit.
  • Does this pooled rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The 84% rate is a historical summary and is not a prediction for any specific application.
◈ 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 Douglas S Lee 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: 365 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