LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/GIOVANNA B COLAN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Giovanna B Colan

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 387 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 Giovanna B Colan has allowed 273 of 387 decided applications (71%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

71% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2165 · 87%AU 2162 · 52%AU 2155 · 67%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Giovanna B Colan has a public record spanning 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 387 disposed applications, 273 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 71%. This rate reflects decided cases (allowed and abandoned applications combined); pending applications are excluded. The allowance rate varies across the examiner's art units, ranging from 52% to 87%. These figures represent the examiner's pooled historical record and are not predictions for any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates data across multiple art units within TC 2100, producing a single allowance rate that masks variation among individual units. The 71% figure describes past dispositions—allowed and abandoned applications out of all decided cases—and reflects no single art unit. Pooled statistics describe historical outcomes; they are correlational snapshots, not forecasts of how any particular application will be examined or decided.

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 2165
216 APPS · 87% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

87% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION167 / 26 / 23allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.5 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY31.8 moart unit avg 39.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility15% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)98%
§103 — Obviousness84% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness24%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW95%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW77%+18 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 103 decided applications with an interview and 90 without.

ART UNIT 2162
164 APPS · 52% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

52% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION86 / 78 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29.9 moart unit avg 23.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY53.6 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20% · art unit 56%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)60%
§103 — Obviousness48% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness4%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW68%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW40%+28 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 72 decided applications with an interview and 92 without.

ART UNIT 2155
30 APPS · 67% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

67% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION20 / 10 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.6 moart unit avg 27.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY51.1 moart unit avg 42.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility26% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)79%
§103 — Obviousness89% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness37%

Based on 30 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Giovanna B Colan

  • What is Giovanna B Colan's overall allowance rate?
    71% across 387 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    3 art units (2155, 2162, 2165) within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across her art units?
    Allowance rates range from 52% to 87% across the examiner's art units.
  • What does the pooled allowance rate tell me about my application?
    The pooled rate describes past outcomes across all her art units combined. It is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual art-unit rates may differ from the pooled figure.
◈ 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 Giovanna B Colan 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: 410 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