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

Examiner Jorge A Casanova

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 1,153 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 Jorge A Casanova has allowed 1,024 of 1,153 decided applications (89%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

89% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2165 · 94%AU 2159 · 83%AU 2169 · 64%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Jorge A Casanova maintains a public record across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 1,153 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 89%, meaning 1,024 applications were allowed and 129 were abandoned. The allowance rate ranges from 64% to 94% across these art units, reflecting variation in the examiner's record within the technology center.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates data from multiple art units and represents the examiner's historical performance pooled across those units. The aggregate allowance rate describes past decisions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Variation across individual art units means performance differs by subject matter within TC 2100. Individual art-unit records provide more granular detail for applications in specific areas.

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 2165
664 APPS · 94% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

94% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION602 / 36 / 26allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.4 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY25.3 moart unit avg 39.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility53% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)41%
§103 — Obviousness67% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness29%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW98%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW90%+8 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 360 decided applications with an interview and 278 without.

ART UNIT 2159
493 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

83% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION408 / 85 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.7 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.7 moart unit avg 45.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility51% · art unit 55%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)52%
§103 — Obviousness81% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness30%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW90%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW77%+13 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 206 decided applications with an interview and 287 without.

ART UNIT 2169
22 APPS · 64% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

64% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 47%
DISPOSITION14 / 8 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.6 moart unit avg 24.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.6 moart unit avg 40 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Jorge A Casanova

  • What is Jorge A Casanova's overall allowance rate?
    89% over 1,153 disposed applications (1,024 allowed, 129 abandoned). This is a historical aggregate and not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Three art units (2159, 2165, 2169) within Technology Center 2100.
  • How does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    The allowance rate ranges from 64% to 94% across the three art units, indicating variation in the examiner's record by subject matter within TC 2100.
  • Does this record predict my application's outcome?
    No. This pooled historical record describes past decisions and is not a prediction of any specific application.
◈ 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 Jorge A Casanova 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: 1,179 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