Examiner Paulinho E Smith has allowed 512 of 620 decided applications (83%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Paulinho E Smith maintains a public record spanning five art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 620 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate stands at 83%, reflecting 512 allowed applications against 108 abandonments. The record covers a broad range of subject matter across TC 2100, with allowance rates ranging from 80% to 92% across individual art units. This pooled figure aggregates performance across multiple distinct examination areas and represents historical outcomes on decided cases, excluding pending applications.
This pooled record aggregates five separate art units within TC 2100, each with distinct examination patterns. The overall 83% allowance rate describes past outcomes across all decided applications in this examiner's record. Aggregate figures reflect historical performance and are not predictions about any specific application. Individual art units may show variation from the pooled average. Understanding the breadth and range of this record provides context for the examiner's overall experience, but does not forecast outcomes in any pending matter.
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 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 80 decided applications with an interview and 131 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 48 decided applications with an interview and 205 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 31 decided applications with an interview and 100 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Based on 13 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Based on 12 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Paulinho E Smith 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: 663 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