LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/LASHANYA RENEE NASH
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Lashanya Renee Nash

TECH CENTER 2100 · 1 ART UNIT · 49 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2008
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT

Examiner Lashanya Renee Nash has allowed 11 of 49 decided applications (22%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

22% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Lashanya Renee Nash has a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) spanning one art unit. Over 49 disposed applications, the allowance rate is 22%, with 11 allowed and 38 abandoned. This allowance rate reflects decisions on applications that have been resolved; it does not include pending applications and is not predictive of outcomes in any specific case. The examiner's record is pooled across all assigned art units in this technology center.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This profile presents pooled figures across all art units assigned to the examiner. An allowance rate derived from a pooled record aggregates different art units and reflects historical decisions already made. Pooled figures describe the past record only and are not predictions about any individual application. To understand performance within a specific art unit, consult the per-art-unit breakdown on this page.

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 2153
49 APPS · 22% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

22% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION11 / 38 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION39.5 moart unit avg 27.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY58.1 moart unit avg 41.6 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Lashanya Renee Nash

  • What is this examiner's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 22% across 49 disposed applications (11 allowed, 38 abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner is assigned to one art unit in TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. The allowance rate is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
  • What subject matter does this examiner handle?
    The examiner works in Technology Center 2100 (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 Lashanya Renee Nash 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: 49 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