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

Examiner John J Morris

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 264 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 John J Morris has allowed 174 of 264 decided applications (66%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

66% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2157 · 68%AU 2152 · 61%AU 2151 · 85%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

John J Morris maintains a public record across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 264 decided applications, his allowance rate stands at 66%. The record spans art units 2151, 2152, and 2157, with allowance rates ranging from 61% to 85% across these units. Of 295 total applications in his record, 174 were allowed and 90 were abandoned. These figures represent historical data and do not predict outcomes on any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This profile aggregates an examiner's record across multiple art units. The 66% allowance rate reflects decisions already made on 264 applications—allowed and abandoned cases combined—and describes past examination activity. Pooled figures mask variation among individual art units; the range of 61% to 85% shows that outcomes differ by art unit. Aggregate statistics are historical summaries, not forecasts of how any specific application will be examined.

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
133 APPS · 68% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

68% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION91 / 42 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22 moart unit avg 28 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY51.7 moart unit avg 46.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility47% · art unit 48%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)55%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness28%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW77%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW61%+16 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 64 decided applications with an interview and 69 without.

ART UNIT 2152
118 APPS · 61% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

61% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION72 / 46 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.1 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48.2 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility53% · art unit 62%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)31%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness30%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW65%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW54%+11 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 72 decided applications with an interview and 46 without.

ART UNIT 2151
44 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

85% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION11 / 2 / 31allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION15.9 moart unit avg 31.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.3 moart unit avg 44.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility70% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)36%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness30%

Based on 44 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner John J Morris

  • What is John J Morris's overall allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 66%, calculated over 264 decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) across all art units in his record.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Morris has a record spanning three art units (2151, 2152, 2157) within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 61% to 85% across the art units in his record, reflecting variation in outcomes by unit.
  • What do these statistics mean for my application?
    These figures describe Morris's past decisions and are not predictions about any specific application. Individual case outcomes depend on claim scope, prior art, and examination conduct.
◈ 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 J Morris 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: 295 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