LYNCH·LLP
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Marina Lee

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 795 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 Marina Lee has allowed 690 of 795 decided applications (87%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

87% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2192 · 88%AU 2198 · 88%AU 2197 · 40%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Marina Lee maintains a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 795 disposed applications, her allowance rate stands at 87%. Of 826 total applications on file, 690 were allowed and 105 were abandoned. The allowance rate reflects only decided cases and excludes pending matters. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes across multiple art units and describes her historical record without bearing on any individual application's outcome.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines data from multiple art units into one aggregate profile. The allowance rate and disposition counts shown here are historical summaries across all units in which the examiner has worked. These figures describe what occurred in past applications and are not predictive of outcomes in any specific pending case. Individual art units may have different characteristics; this page presents the cross-unit total only.

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 2192
675 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines software engineering.

88% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION565 / 79 / 31allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.1 moart unit avg 29.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY29.6 moart unit avg 45.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility39% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)93%
§103 — Obviousness78% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness43%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW94%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW84%+10 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 261 decided applications with an interview and 383 without.

ART UNIT 2198
136 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

88% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 83%
DISPOSITION119 / 17 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION31 moart unit avg 25.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY42.1 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility50% · art unit 50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)62%
§103 — Obviousness91% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness51%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW98%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW80%+18 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 55 decided applications with an interview and 81 without.

ART UNIT 2197
15 APPS · 40% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines program control and execution, and software engineering.

40% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 69%
DISPOSITION6 / 9 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION42.6 moart unit avg 26 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY60.7 moart unit avg 44.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility33% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness33% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness33%

Based on 15 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Marina Lee

  • What is Marina Lee's overall allowance rate?
    Her allowance rate is 87%, calculated over 795 disposed applications (allowed plus abandoned). This rate is a summary of her past record and is not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does Marina Lee cover?
    She has a record across 3 art units (2192, 2197, 2198) within TC 2100. The figures shown here are pooled across all three units.
  • What does the allowance rate include and exclude?
    The 87% rate includes allowed and abandoned applications only. It does not include pending applications. Of 826 total applications on file, 795 have been decided.
  • What is the subject matter of this examiner's work?
    Marina Lee examines applications 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 Marina Lee 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: 826 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