Examiner Sue X Lao has allowed 34 of 39 decided applications (87%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Sue X Lao has a pooled record of 39 disposed applications across 2 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of those decided applications, 34 were allowed and 5 were abandoned, yielding an allowance rate of 87%. This pooled figure aggregates her record across art units 2126 and 2194. The allowance rate reflects past dispositions and is not a prediction of any specific application outcome.
This pooled record aggregates dispositions across multiple art units within TC 2100. The allowance rate of 87% describes the examiner's historical record across those units combined and does not predict the outcome of any individual application. Art-unit-specific records, where available separately, may show variation. Pooled figures provide a broad view but do not account for differences in application complexity, amendment patterns, or individual case circumstances.
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 program control and execution.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Sue X Lao 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: 39 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