LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/ELIZABETH G WRIGHT
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Elizabeth G Wright

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 94 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION SEP 2015
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Elizabeth G Wright has allowed 21 of 94 decided applications (22%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

22% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2172 · 29%AU 2175 · 0%AU 2176 · 14%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Elizabeth G Wright holds a public record across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 94 disposed applications, she allowed 21 and abandoned 73, yielding an allowance rate of 22%. This rate reflects decisions on applications that have been fully resolved. The pooled figure spans art units 2172, 2175, and 2176 and represents her aggregate record across this subject-matter area. This statistic is a historical summary of past dispositions and does not forecast outcomes in any particular case.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units into a single overall allowance rate. This aggregate figure summarizes past dispositions but is not a prediction of how any future application will be examined. The allowance rate describes what has occurred on decided applications; it does not indicate how an examiner will treat a specific case. Pooled data obscures variation between individual art units and is most useful for understanding broad patterns across an examiner's practice.

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 2172
68 APPS · 29% ALLOWANCE
29% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION20 / 48 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30.7 moart unit avg 24.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY65.7 moart unit avg 44.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility53% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)71%
§103 — Obviousness86% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness35%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW42%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW13%+29 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 38 decided applications with an interview and 30 without.

ART UNIT 2175
19 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION0 / 19 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.7 moart unit avg 22.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.6 moart unit avg 37.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility100% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)0%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness100%

Based on 19 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2176
7 APPS · 14% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

14% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 59%
DISPOSITION1 / 6 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.4 moart unit avg 23.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.7 moart unit avg 40.5 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Elizabeth G Wright

  • What is Elizabeth G Wright's overall allowance rate?
    Over 94 disposed applications, Wright allowed 21 and abandoned 73, for an allowance rate of 22%.
  • How many art units does Wright's record cover?
    Wright's public record spans three art units (2172, 2175, 2176) within TC 2100.
  • Does this allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The allowance rate is a historical aggregate of past dispositions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
  • What technology areas does this record cover?
    This record covers Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
◈ 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 Elizabeth G Wright 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: 94 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