LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/PAUL JUEI-FU YEN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Paul Juei-Fu Yen

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 449 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 Paul Juei-Fu Yen has allowed 349 of 449 decided applications (78%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

78% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2186 · 81%AU 2116 · 72%AU 2175 · 82%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Paul Juei-Fu Yen maintains a public record across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 449 decided applications, his allowance rate is 78%. The allowance rate ranges from 72% to 82% across his art units. Of 480 total applications in his record, 349 were allowed and 100 were abandoned. This pooled figure represents the examiner's aggregate allowance rate across all three art units and does not reflect performance in any single art unit.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record is pooled across multiple art units, aggregating applications from different technical areas within TC 2100. The overall allowance rate of 78% describes the examiner's past record across all disposed applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual art units may show different allowance rates; this aggregate figure represents the combined record 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 2186
200 APPS · 81% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

81% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION161 / 39 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.8 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.2 moart unit avg 35 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)88%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness58%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW86%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW70%+16 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 131 decided applications with an interview and 69 without.

ART UNIT 2116
170 APPS · 72% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines control or regulating systems.

72% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 78%
DISPOSITION123 / 47 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.7 moart unit avg 24.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.8 moart unit avg 37.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility26% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)76%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness53%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW86%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW63%+23 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 71 decided applications with an interview and 99 without.

ART UNIT 2175
110 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

82% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION65 / 14 / 31allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.2 moart unit avg 22.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.9 moart unit avg 37.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility26% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)89%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness64%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW89%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW56%+33 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 63 decided applications with an interview and 16 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Paul Juei-Fu Yen

  • What is Paul Juei-Fu Yen's overall allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 78% over 449 decided applications, pooled across all art units in his record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Paul Juei-Fu Yen has a public record spanning three art units (2116, 2175, 2186) in TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across his art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 72% to 82% across his art units. The 78% figure is an aggregate across all three units.
  • What do these figures tell me about a specific application?
    These figures describe the examiner's past record and are not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Past rates do not determine future decisions.
◈ 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 Paul Juei-Fu Yen 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: 480 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