LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/JEFFERY L WILLIAMS
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Jeffery L Williams

TECH CENTER 2100 · 1 ART UNIT · 63 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION OCT 2008
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
8%vs 68% art-unit average60 pts

Examiner Jeffery L Williams has allowed 5 of 63 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

allowed5abandoned58pending0· pending excluded from the rate
DATA UPDATED JULY 14, 2026
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Jeffery L Williams maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His pooled allowance rate across dozens of decided applications is 8%. This figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined) in the art unit(s) where he has examined. The record spans 1 art unit. This pooled rate describes his historical record and does not constitute a prediction for any specific pending application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, presenting an overall allowance rate rather than art-unit-specific rates. The 8% figure summarizes past dispositions across decided applications and reflects the examiner's historical pattern. Pooled statistics describe what occurred in the examiner's record; they are not predictions of outcomes in individual cases. Subject-matter variation, claim scope, and application-specific facts remain independent factors.

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 2137
63 APPS · 8% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

8% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 68%
DISPOSITION5 / 58 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION40.8 moart unit avg 25.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY56.4 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW13%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW3%+10 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 32 decided applications with an interview and 31 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Jeffery L Williams

  • What is Jeffery L Williams's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 8% across dozens of decided applications in Technology Center 2100.
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    The pooled record spans 1 art unit in TC 2100.
  • What does the pooled allowance rate mean?
    The 8% figure is the percentage of decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) that were allowed. It describes the examiner's historical record and is not a prediction for any specific application.
  • Does this rate apply to my application?
    Pooled statistics are historical summaries and do not predict outcomes in individual cases. Each application's result depends on claim scope, prior art, and examiner action on that specific file.
◈ 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.

Patent prosecution at Lynch LLPApplication 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 Jeffery L Williams 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: 63 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