LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/JESSICA N LE
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Jessica N Le

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 551 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 Jessica N Le has allowed 400 of 551 decided applications (73%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

73% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2157 · 79%AU 2169 · 73%AU 2161 · 49%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Jessica N Le has a pooled allowance rate of 73% across 551 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Her public record spans three art units: 2157, 2161, and 2169. Of 575 total applications, 400 were allowed and 151 were abandoned. The allowance rate varies across her art units, ranging from 49% to 79%. This aggregate figure reflects her combined record across all three art units and describes her historical decisions rather than any outcome on a specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data from multiple art units into a single allowance-rate figure. This overall 73% rate is the combined result across all three units and reflects past decisions. Aggregate statistics describe historical patterns and do not function as predictions for individual applications. Art-unit allowance rates may differ meaningfully from the pooled average, and applicants may find per-unit data in the art-unit section of this profile.

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 2157
321 APPS · 79% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

79% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION252 / 69 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.7 moart unit avg 28 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY46.5 moart unit avg 46.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility54% · art unit 48%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)70%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness47%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW89%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW72%+17 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 123 decided applications with an interview and 198 without.

ART UNIT 2169
174 APPS · 73% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

73% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 47%
DISPOSITION109 / 41 / 24allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.1 moart unit avg 24.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.4 moart unit avg 40 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility65% · art unit 57%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)85%
§103 — Obviousness88% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness54%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW80%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW64%+16 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 84 decided applications with an interview and 66 without.

ART UNIT 2161
80 APPS · 49% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

49% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 62%
DISPOSITION39 / 41 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.7 moart unit avg 23.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY46.6 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility50% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)50%
§103 — Obviousness50% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness50%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW77%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW16%+61 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 43 decided applications with an interview and 37 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Jessica N Le

  • What is Jessica N Le's overall allowance rate?
    Her pooled allowance rate is 73%, based on 551 disposed applications (allowed plus abandoned) across all three art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Jessica N Le has a public record spanning three art units: 2157, 2161, and 2169, all within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 49% to 79% across her art units. Detailed per-unit rates are available in the art-unit section of this profile.
  • What does the pooled allowance rate mean for my application?
    The pooled rate describes her historical record across all art units and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Outcomes depend on claim language, prior art, and other case-specific factors.
◈ 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 Jessica N Le 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: 575 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