LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/JORDANY NUNEZ
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Jordany Nunez

TECH CENTER 2100 · 5 ART UNITS · 572 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION FEB 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 5 ART UNITS

Examiner Jordany Nunez has allowed 349 of 572 decided applications (61%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

61% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2171 · 61%AU 2175 · 49%AU 2145 · 93%AU 2179 · 27%AU 2177 · 89%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Jordany Nunez has a public record of 572 disposed applications across 5 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of these decided applications, 349 were allowed and 223 were abandoned, yielding an overall allowance rate of 61%. The examiner's work spans art units 2145, 2171, 2175, 2177, and 2179. Allowance rates across these art units range from 27% to 93%, reflecting variation in outcomes by subject area within TC 2100.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates dispositions across multiple art units, pooling different technology areas and examination contexts into a single figure. The 61% allowance rate describes past outcomes on 572 decided applications and does not predict results on any individual application. The range of 27% to 93% shows that allowance rates vary significantly by art unit; the pooled figure masks this variation and is not a substitute for art-unit-specific analysis.

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 2171
393 APPS · 61% ALLOWANCE
61% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 56%
DISPOSITION238 / 155 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.5 moart unit avg 22 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48.3 moart unit avg 37.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility35% · art unit 38%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)70%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness28%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW79%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW44%+35 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 188 decided applications with an interview and 205 without.

ART UNIT 2175
86 APPS · 49% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

49% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION42 / 44 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION34.8 moart unit avg 22.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY66 moart unit avg 37.8 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW66%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW33%+33 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 41 decided applications with an interview and 45 without.

ART UNIT 2145
58 APPS · 93% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

93% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION54 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.8 moart unit avg 26.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY40.6 moart unit avg 45.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility47% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)47%
§103 — Obviousness80% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness27%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW96%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW90%+6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 27 decided applications with an interview and 31 without.

ART UNIT 2179
26 APPS · 27% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
27% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION7 / 19 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION39.3 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY53 moart unit avg 43.3 mo
ART UNIT 2177
9 APPS · 89% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
89% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION8 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.5 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY29.4 moart unit avg 40.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility17% · art unit 40%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%

Based on 9 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Jordany Nunez

  • What is Examiner Nunez's overall allowance rate?
    61%, based on 349 allowed applications out of 572 total disposed applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    5 art units (2145, 2171, 2175, 2177, 2179) within TC 2100.
  • Do allowance rates vary across the examiner's art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 27% to 93% across the art units in this examiner's record, showing material variation by subject area.
  • Does the pooled 61% rate apply to my application?
    The pooled figure describes past outcomes across all five art units and is not a prediction for any specific application. Art-unit-specific records may differ from this aggregate.
◈ 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 Jordany Nunez 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: 572 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