Examiner Jason Kai Yin Gee has allowed 25 of 69 decided applications (36%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Jason Kai Yin Gee maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 69 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 36%, reflecting 25 allowed and 44 abandoned applications. The record spans a single art unit, providing a pooled view of prosecution outcomes in this technology center. These figures represent historical disposition data and do not constitute predictions about any specific application.
A pooled record aggregates outcomes across all art units assigned to an examiner. The allowance rate shown here is the percentage of applications that were allowed, calculated from the total of decided cases (allowed plus abandoned), excluding any pending matters. Aggregate historical rates describe past outcomes and are not predictions of the result in any particular case or a measure of future performance.
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 →
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.
Primarily examines network security, and computer and data security.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 16 decided applications with an interview and 53 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Jason Kai Yin Gee 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: 69 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