LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/JOHN A LANE
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner John A Lane

TECH CENTER 2100 · 5 ART UNITS · 1,407 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION FEB 2025
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 5 ART UNITS

Examiner John A Lane has allowed 1,344 of 1,407 decided applications (96%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

96% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2139 · 96%AU 2185 · 95%AU 2189 · 93%AU 2188 · 96%AU 2186 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

John A Lane maintains a public record across 5 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His pooled allowance rate is 96% of decided applications. Over a disposed-application count of 1,407, this represents 1,344 allowed applications and 63 abandoned applications. Across his art units, the allowance rate ranges from 93% to 96%. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes across multiple art units and represents the historical record only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates results across multiple art units and reflects past dispositions, not predictions about any individual application. The overall allowance rate describes what has occurred across an examiner's full portfolio in a technology center. The range across art units shows variation within the examiner's work. Pooled data characterizes historical performance and does not forecast outcomes in any pending or future application.

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 2139
700 APPS · 96% ALLOWANCE

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

96% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION673 / 27 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION14.7 moart unit avg 24 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY21.5 moart unit avg 37.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility8% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)51%
§103 — Obviousness36% · art unit 80%
§112 — Written description & definiteness38%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW100%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW95%+5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 106 decided applications with an interview and 594 without.

ART UNIT 2185
444 APPS · 95% ALLOWANCE
95% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION422 / 22 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.8 moart unit avg 21.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.5 moart unit avg 36.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility16% · art unit 19%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)58%
§103 — Obviousness22% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness13%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW99%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW93%+6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 154 decided applications with an interview and 290 without.

ART UNIT 2189
153 APPS · 93% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

93% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 77%
DISPOSITION143 / 10 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.4 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY29.9 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility11% · art unit 44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)55%
§103 — Obviousness27% · art unit 72%
§112 — Written description & definiteness31%
ART UNIT 2188
106 APPS · 96% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

96% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION102 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.2 moart unit avg 26.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY30 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
ART UNIT 2186
4 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION4 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16.3 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY16.3 moart unit avg 35 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner John A Lane

  • What is John A Lane's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 96% across 1,407 decided applications (1,344 allowed; 63 abandoned).
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    The record spans 5 art units: 2139, 2185, 2186, 2188, and 2189.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across his art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates across his art units range from 93% to 96%.
  • What subject matter does this examiner handle?
    John A Lane works in TC 2100, covering Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
◈ 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 John A Lane 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: 1,407 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