LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Emilio J Saavedra

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 512 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Emilio J Saavedra has allowed 358 of 512 decided applications (70%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

70% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2117 · 78%AU 2127 · 47%AU 2125 · 77%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Emilio J Saavedra holds a public record of 567 total applications across Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Among 512 decided applications, 358 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 70%. The examiner's work spans three art units within TC 2100. Allowance rates across these art units range from 47% to 78%, reflecting variation in outcomes by subject-matter classification. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's record without breaking down individual art-unit performance.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This profile presents Emilio J Saavedra's aggregate record pooled across multiple art units in TC 2100. The 70% allowance rate reflects historical decisions on 512 disposed applications and describes past outcomes only. Pooled figures do not isolate performance by art unit and are not predictions of the outcome on any single application. Review of the separate art-unit detail will show how allowance rates vary by classification within the technology center.

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 2117
408 APPS · 78% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines control or regulating systems.

78% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 74%
DISPOSITION276 / 77 / 55allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.2 moart unit avg 20.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.7 moart unit avg 33.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility28% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)94%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness69%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW89%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW68%+21 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 174 decided applications with an interview and 179 without.

ART UNIT 2127
133 APPS · 47% ALLOWANCE

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

47% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION62 / 71 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.7 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility16% · art unit 51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)84%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness78%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW76%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW36%+40 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 34 decided applications with an interview and 99 without.

ART UNIT 2125
26 APPS · 77% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

77% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 75%
DISPOSITION20 / 6 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.6 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY51.3 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility44% · art unit 50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)92%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness84%

Based on 26 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Emilio J Saavedra

  • What is Examiner Saavedra's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 70%, based on 358 allowed applications out of 512 decided applications across all art units in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Saavedra has a substantial record across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • Does the allowance rate vary across the examiner's art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 47% to 78%. The pooled 70% figure aggregates these individual unit rates and does not represent performance in any single art unit. Separate art-unit data will show specific rates by classification.
  • Is the 70% allowance rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The 70% figure describes historical decisions on past applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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 Emilio J Saavedra 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: 567 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