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

Examiner Roberto Borja

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 269 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION APR 2025
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Roberto Borja has allowed 137 of 269 decided applications (51%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

51% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2173 · 48%AU 2172 · 63%AU 2145 · 61%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Roberto Borja maintains a public record across three art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 269 decided applications, his allowance rate stands at 51%, meaning 137 applications were allowed and 132 were abandoned. The allowance rate ranges from 48% to 63% across these art units, reflecting variation in outcomes within his pooled record. This aggregate figure describes the examiner's past disposition of applications and does not constitute a prediction for any specific pending or future filing.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, presenting an overall allowance rate as a historical summary. The 51% figure reflects all decided applications across three separate art units in TC 2100, each of which may carry its own allowance rate. Aggregate statistics describe past outcomes and are not predictions of outcomes in any particular application. Individual art-unit records, where available, provide unit-specific context that may differ from the pooled average.

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 2173
219 APPS · 48% ALLOWANCE
48% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION106 / 113 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.6 moart unit avg 25.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.9 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility45% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)98%
§103 — Obviousness99% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness68%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW71%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW6%+65 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 142 decided applications with an interview and 77 without.

ART UNIT 2172
32 APPS · 63% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
63% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION20 / 12 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.5 moart unit avg 24.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.3 moart unit avg 44.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility47% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)97%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness53%

Based on 32 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2145
18 APPS · 61% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

61% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION11 / 7 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16.6 moart unit avg 26.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.3 moart unit avg 45.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility24% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness53%

Based on 18 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Roberto Borja

  • What is Roberto Borja's overall allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 51% across 269 decided applications (137 allowed, 132 abandoned) pooled over all his art units in TC 2100. This is a historical figure and does not predict any specific application's outcome.
  • How many art units does Borja work in?
    Borja has a public record spanning three art units (2145, 2172, 2173) within Technology Center 2100. This pooled profile aggregates his work across all three.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across his art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 48% to 63% across the three art units in his record. Individual art-unit profiles provide unit-specific allowance rates.
  • What does the pooled record tell me about a specific application?
    The pooled allowance rate describes past dispositions as an aggregate and is not a prediction of any individual application's fate. Outcomes depend on application-specific factors, art-unit assignment, and examiner decisions in that case.
◈ 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 Roberto Borja 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: 269 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