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

Examiner Jason Lin

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 789 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 Jason Lin has allowed 578 of 789 decided applications (73%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

73% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2117 · 85%AU 2121 · 48%AU 2125 · 72%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Jason Lin holds a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 789 disposed applications, 578 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 73%. The allowance rate varies across his art units, ranging from 48% to 85%. This pooled figure reflects the aggregate of his work across these units and does not represent the rate for any single art unit or predict outcomes in specific applications.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, masking variation among them. The overall allowance rate of 73% describes past dispositions across all units combined and is historical, not predictive. Individual art units may have materially different allowance rates—in this case, spanning 48% to 85%—so a pooled figure alone does not indicate the likely outcome in any particular application or art unit. Per-art-unit detail is available separately.

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
500 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines control or regulating systems.

85% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 74%
DISPOSITION395 / 68 / 37allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20 moart unit avg 20.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.4 moart unit avg 33.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility39% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)37%
§103 — Obviousness76% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness73%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW91%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW77%+14 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 274 decided applications with an interview and 189 without.

ART UNIT 2121
217 APPS · 48% ALLOWANCE

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

48% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION105 / 112 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.3 moart unit avg 27 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48.3 moart unit avg 39.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility19% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)25%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness58%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW67%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW41%+26 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 64 decided applications with an interview and 153 without.

ART UNIT 2125
109 APPS · 72% ALLOWANCE

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

72% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 75%
DISPOSITION78 / 31 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.9 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.1 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility42% · art unit 50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)37%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness75%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW87%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW48%+39 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 67 decided applications with an interview and 42 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Jason Lin

  • What is Jason Lin's overall allowance rate?
    73% across 789 disposed applications pooled from 3 art units in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    3 art units (2117, 2121, 2125) within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 48% to 85% across his art units. Individual art-unit rates are available in the per-unit section.
  • What does the 73% rate mean for my application?
    It is a historical aggregate across all his art units, not a prediction. Outcome depends on the specific art unit, claim content, and examination.
◈ 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 Jason Lin 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: 826 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