Examiner Kenneth M Lo has allowed 149 of 301 decided applications (50%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Kenneth M Lo maintains a pooled allowance rate of 50% across 301 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His record spans six art units: 2116, 2121, 2133, 2136, 2188, and 2189. Of the 301 decided applications, 149 were allowed and 152 were abandoned. The allowance rate varies across his art units, ranging from 22% to 58%. This pooled figure represents aggregate historical performance across all six art units and does not constitute a prediction for any individual application.
This pooled record aggregates Kenneth M Lo's performance across six separate art units in TC 2100. The 50% allowance rate is calculated from all decided applications across these units combined. Pooled figures describe past dispositions and are correlational only—they do not predict the outcome of any specific application. Individual art units may show variation; the range of 22% to 58% reflects that disparity. Review of individual art-unit records provides more granular historical data.
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 →
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.
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 34 decided applications with an interview and 92 without.
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 38 decided applications with an interview and 51 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 17 decided applications with an interview and 33 without.
Primarily examines control or regulating systems.
Based on 38 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.
Based on 4 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer.
Based on 4 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Kenneth M Lo 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: 311 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