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

Examiner Midys Rojas

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 1,060 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Midys Rojas has allowed 927 of 1,060 decided applications (87%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

87% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2133 · 95%AU 2185 · 65%AU 2188 · 92%AU 2189 · 86%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Midys Rojas maintains a public record across 4 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 1,060 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 87%. This aggregate figure reflects 927 allowed applications and 133 abandoned applications pooled across the art units served. The allowance rate ranges from 65% to 95% across these art units, reflecting variation in the examiner's record by specific art unit.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units and represents past dispositions, not a prediction of outcomes in any specific application. The overall allowance rate describes historical patterns across all art units combined. Art-unit-level detail is available separately and may differ materially from the aggregate. Pooled statistics describe what occurred; they are not forecasts of future prosecution results.

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 2133
664 APPS · 95% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

95% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 82%
DISPOSITION595 / 33 / 36allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16.6 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY26.8 moart unit avg 34.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility8% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)74%
§103 — Obviousness47% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness56%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW99%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW94%+5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 151 decided applications with an interview and 477 without.

ART UNIT 2185
234 APPS · 65% ALLOWANCE
65% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION152 / 82 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.5 moart unit avg 21.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY53.4 moart unit avg 36.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility10% · art unit 19%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)72%
§103 — Obviousness66% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness22%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW78%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW61%+17 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 58 decided applications with an interview and 176 without.

ART UNIT 2188
177 APPS · 92% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

92% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION162 / 15 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.1 moart unit avg 26.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.9 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility18% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)63%
§103 — Obviousness58% · art unit 74%
§112 — Written description & definiteness52%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW96%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW91%+5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 23 decided applications with an interview and 154 without.

ART UNIT 2189
21 APPS · 86% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

86% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 77%
DISPOSITION18 / 3 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.1 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY44.3 moart unit avg 39 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Midys Rojas

  • What is Midys Rojas's overall allowance rate?
    87% over 1,060 disposed applications pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    4 art units (2133, 2185, 2188, 2189) within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the art units?
    The allowance rate ranges from 65% to 95% across the examiner's art units.
  • Does the pooled rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. Pooled statistics describe past dispositions across multiple art units and are not predictions for 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 Midys Rojas 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: 1,096 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