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

Examiner Edward Zee

TECH CENTER 2100 · 1 ART UNIT · 20 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION SEP 2008
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT

Examiner Edward Zee has allowed 12 of 20 decided applications (60%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

60% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Edward Zee maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 20 disposed applications in art unit 2135, Zee allowed 12 and 8 were abandoned, for an allowance rate of 60% over the decided count. The examiner works within a single art unit. This pooled record reflects outcomes on applications that have received final disposition; it does not include pending filings and is not a prediction of outcomes on any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across all art units where an examiner works. The allowance rate shown here—60% over 20 decided applications—describes the examiner's past outcomes in the aggregate. Because pooled figures combine different art units and subject areas, the overall rate does not predict the outcome of any individual application. For detail by specific art unit, refer to the per-art-unit section.

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 2135
20 APPS · 60% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

60% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION12 / 8 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION36.5 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY49.8 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Edward Zee

  • What is Edward Zee's overall allowance rate?
    60% across 20 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    One art unit (2135). This is a pooled record aggregating all art units where the examiner works.
  • Does the pooled allowance rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The pooled rate describes past outcomes across multiple art units 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 Edward Zee 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: 20 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