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

Examiner Fuming Wu

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 121 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION SEP 2019
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Fuming Wu has allowed 69 of 121 decided applications (57%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

57% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2122 · 59%AU 2123 · 46%AU 2124 · 33%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Fuming Wu has a public record spanning three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 121 disposed applications, 69 were allowed and 52 were abandoned, yielding an allowance rate of 57%. This rate reflects decided cases only and does not include pending applications. The record aggregates decisions across art units 2122, 2123, and 2124, pooling outcomes from multiple examination areas within the technology center.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines data from multiple art units into a single aggregate. The allowance rate and other statistics represent historical outcomes across all art units combined and describe the examiner's past record. These figures are not predictions about any specific application. To understand patterns within individual art units, consult the separate per-art-unit sections of this page.

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 2122
105 APPS · 59% ALLOWANCE

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

59% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION62 / 43 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.4 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY40.3 moart unit avg 39.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility57% · art unit 55%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)47%
§103 — Obviousness86% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness38%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW69%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW49%+20 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 52 decided applications with an interview and 53 without.

ART UNIT 2123
13 APPS · 46% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

46% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 51%
DISPOSITION6 / 7 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.4 moart unit avg 29.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY55.9 moart unit avg 43.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility85% · art unit 61%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)62%
§103 — Obviousness77% · art unit 85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness23%

Based on 13 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2124
3 APPS · 33% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

33% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 64%
DISPOSITION1 / 2 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.5 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility100% · art unit 61%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)33%
§103 — Obviousness67% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness33%

Based on 3 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Fuming Wu

  • What is Examiner Wu's overall allowance rate?
    57%, based on 121 disposed applications (69 allowed, 52 abandoned). This figure pools all art units and does not predict the outcome of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    Three art units: 2122, 2123, and 2124. The figures presented here aggregate all decisions across these units within TC 2100.
  • What does 'disposed applications' mean?
    Disposed applications are decided cases—those that are either allowed or abandoned. Pending applications are excluded from this count and from the allowance-rate calculation.
  • Does this pooled rate apply to my art unit?
    No. This pooled figure combines multiple art units. Per-art-unit rates and details are provided separately and may differ from the aggregate.
◈ 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 Fuming Wu 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: 121 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