LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/JAMES K TRUJILLO
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner James K Trujillo

TECH CENTER 2100 · 5 ART UNITS · 161 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAY 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 5 ART UNITS
65%vs 74% weighted peer average9 pts

Examiner James K Trujillo has allowed 105 of 161 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

allowed105abandoned56pending4· pending excluded from the rate
The weighted peer average (74%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (5 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 14, 2026
AU 2116 · 74%AU 2157 · 0%AU 2151 · 71%AU 2159 · 0%AU 2185 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner James K Trujillo has an overall allowance rate of 65% across hundreds of decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications, spanning 5 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). These are pooled figures from the public USPTO record, not predictions about any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This page pools Examiner James K Trujillo's record across 5 art units into one overall allowance rate — total allowed divided by total decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications, with pending excluded. Aggregate figures describe the past public record and are not predictions about any specific application. This is general information about the data, not legal advice.

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 2116
134 APPS · 74% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines control or regulating systems.

74% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 78%
DISPOSITION99 / 35 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29 moart unit avg 24.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY42 moart unit avg 37.7 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW74%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW74%0 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 23 decided applications with an interview and 111 without.

ART UNIT 2157
12 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION0 / 12 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.9 moart unit avg 28 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY55.9 moart unit avg 46.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
REJECTION RATE = SHARE OF THIS EXAMINER'S APPLICATIONS THAT DREW ≥1 OFFICE-ACTION REJECTION IN WHICH THE GROUND APPEARS

Grounds can co-occur, so the four don't sum to 100%. The art-unit figure is the unweighted mean across examiners in the art unit; §102 and §112 carry no art-unit benchmark.

§101 — Subject-matter eligibility75%art unit 48%+27 pts
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)83%no art-unit benchmark
§103 — Obviousness92%art unit 85%+7 pts
§112 — Written description & definiteness42%no art-unit benchmark

Based on 12 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2151
11 APPS · 71% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

71% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION5 / 2 / 4allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION36.7 moart unit avg 31.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY55 moart unit avg 44.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
REJECTION RATE = SHARE OF THIS EXAMINER'S APPLICATIONS THAT DREW ≥1 OFFICE-ACTION REJECTION IN WHICH THE GROUND APPEARS

Grounds can co-occur, so the four don't sum to 100%. The art-unit figure is the unweighted mean across examiners in the art unit; §102 and §112 carry no art-unit benchmark.

§101 — Subject-matter eligibility73%art unit 53%+20 pts
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)73%no art-unit benchmark
§103 — Obviousness82%art unit 79%+3 pts
§112 — Written description & definiteness55%no art-unit benchmark

Based on 11 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2159
7 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION0 / 7 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.3 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY54.1 moart unit avg 45.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
REJECTION RATE = SHARE OF THIS EXAMINER'S APPLICATIONS THAT DREW ≥1 OFFICE-ACTION REJECTION IN WHICH THE GROUND APPEARS

Grounds can co-occur, so the four don't sum to 100%. The art-unit figure is the unweighted mean across examiners in the art unit; §102 and §112 carry no art-unit benchmark.

§101 — Subject-matter eligibility25%art unit 55%30 pts
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)50%no art-unit benchmark
§103 — Obviousness100%art unit 82%+18 pts
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%no art-unit benchmark

Based on 7 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2185
1 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION1 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION10.4 moart unit avg 21.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY20.3 moart unit avg 36.3 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner James K Trujillo

  • What is Examiner James K Trujillo's overall allowance rate?
    65% across hundreds of decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications in public USPTO data, pooled over 5 art units.
  • How many art units does Examiner James K Trujillo examine in?
    5 art units within Technology Center 2100, based on the public record.
  • Does Examiner James K Trujillo's allowance rate vary by art unit?
    The per-art-unit figures are shown in the breakdown on this page.
◈ HOW LYNCH LLP CAN HELP

Where to go next.

Lynch LLP represents applicants in patent prosecution before the USPTO. These are general resources about the firm's services — not advice about this examiner or any specific application.

Drafting and prosecuting patent applicationsApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.PTAB trials and patent appealsAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Building a patent portfolioHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Booking a consultationFree and paid consultation options across the firm's attorneys.
◈ 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 James K Trujillo 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 July 14, 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: 165 applications.

Rejection rates. Each §-rate is the share of this examiner's applications that drew at least one office-action rejection in which that statutory ground appears; applications with no rejection on record are excluded, and because grounds can co-occur the four do not sum to 100%. The art-unit figure beside each is the unweighted mean of the per-examiner rates across the art unit, published for §101 and §103 only. Beside the overall allowance rate we show a benchmark: for a single-art-unit examiner it is exactly that art unit's average, labeled “art-unit average”; for an examiner spanning several art units it is the “weighted peer average” — the per-art-unit averages, weighted by this examiner's application count in each — labeled distinctly because it is a blended figure, not any single art unit's average. Both are built from the same per-art-unit averages the panels show.

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