Examiner Jay B Hann has allowed 318 of 502 decided applications (63%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Jay B Hann has a pooled record across 5 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 502 disposed applications, 318 were allowed, yielding a 63% allowance rate. The examiner's work spans art units 2123, 2129, 2148, 2186, and 2189. Across these art units, allowance rates range from 52% to 76%, reflecting variation in outcomes within the examiner's portfolio. The record aggregates decisions made over time and across different art units within TC 2100.
This pooled record combines results from five art units into a single aggregate profile. The 63% allowance rate reflects past decisions across all these units and represents the overall disposal pattern, not a prediction for any individual application. Aggregate figures describe historical outcomes and mask unit-by-unit variation—the range of 52% to 76% shows that allowance rates differ among the art units included in this aggregate.
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 neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 116 decided applications with an interview and 83 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 85 decided applications with an interview and 33 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 72 decided applications with an interview and 42 without.
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Based on 42 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Jay B Hann 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: 548 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