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

Examiner Sidney Li

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 452 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 Sidney Li has allowed 373 of 452 decided applications (83%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

83% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2136 · 81%AU 2137 · 89%AU 2186 · 64%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Sidney Li maintains an overall allowance rate of 83% across 452 decided applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). The examiner's record spans three art units: 2136, 2137, and 2186. Of the 483 total applications in the public record, 373 were allowed and 79 were abandoned. The allowance rate across these art units ranges from 81% to 89%, reflecting variation in outcomes within the technology center.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data from multiple art units within TC 2100. The 83% allowance rate describes historical outcomes across all decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application. Because different art units may have different subject matter and examination patterns, the range (81% to 89%) indicates variance within the examiner's overall practice. Pooled figures describe the past 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 2136
318 APPS · 81% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer.

81% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 60%
DISPOSITION257 / 61 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.1 moart unit avg 27.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.3 moart unit avg 43.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility28% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)64%
§103 — Obviousness85% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness57%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW82%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW80%+2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 159 decided applications with an interview and 159 without.

ART UNIT 2137
154 APPS · 89% ALLOWANCE

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

89% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 68%
DISPOSITION109 / 14 / 31allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION15.5 moart unit avg 25.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY28.6 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility32% · art unit 25%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness58%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW89%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW88%+1 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 66 decided applications with an interview and 57 without.

ART UNIT 2186
11 APPS · 64% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

64% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION7 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.5 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.1 moart unit avg 35 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)40%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness30%

Based on 11 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Sidney Li

  • What is Sidney Li's overall allowance rate?
    The overall allowance rate is 83%, calculated from 452 decided applications (373 allowed, 79 abandoned) across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Sidney Li has a record spanning three art units (2136, 2137, 2186) within Technology Center 2100.
  • Do allowance rates vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 81% to 89% across the examiner's art units, reflecting differences in outcomes within TC 2100.
  • Does this rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. Historical allowance rates describe past dispositions and are not predictions of 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 Sidney Li 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: 483 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