LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/VIKER ALEJANDRO LAMARDO
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Viker Alejandro Lamardo

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 228 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION APR 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Viker Alejandro Lamardo has allowed 142 of 228 decided applications (62%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

62% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2126 · 71%AU 2122 · 41%AU 2124 · 67%AU 2147 · 33%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Viker Alejandro Lamardo has a public record spanning four art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 228 disposed applications, 142 were allowed and 86 were abandoned, yielding an overall allowance rate of 62%. The allowance rate varies across the examiner's art units, ranging from 41% to 71%. This pooled figure reflects the aggregate record across all four art units and does not represent performance in any single art unit.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units within a technology center. The overall allowance rate—here, 62% across 228 disposed applications—describes past aggregate performance and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The range (41% to 71%) indicates variation among individual art units. Pooled figures are historical summaries; they do not account for differences in claim scope, prior art, or other application-specific factors.

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 2126
117 APPS · 71% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

71% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION83 / 34 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29.5 moart unit avg 29.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY54.8 moart unit avg 44.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility74% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)92%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness75%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW78%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW56%+22 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 81 decided applications with an interview and 36 without.

ART UNIT 2122
56 APPS · 41% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

41% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION23 / 33 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.3 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37 moart unit avg 39.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility48% · art unit 55%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)65%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness44%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW46%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW37%+9 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 26 decided applications with an interview and 30 without.

ART UNIT 2124
52 APPS · 67% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

67% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 64%
DISPOSITION35 / 17 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY49.1 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility94% · art unit 61%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)86%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness56%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW76%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW47%+29 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 37 decided applications with an interview and 15 without.

ART UNIT 2147
3 APPS · 33% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

33% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 44%
DISPOSITION1 / 2 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.9 moart unit avg 29.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.9 moart unit avg 46.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility67% · art unit 74%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness33%

Based on 3 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Viker Alejandro Lamardo

  • What is Examiner Lamardo's overall allowance rate?
    62%, based on 142 allowed and 86 abandoned applications among 228 total disposed applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Four art units: 2122, 2124, 2126, and 2147, all in TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across the examiner's art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 41% to 71% across these four art units.
  • What does this pooled record represent?
    An aggregate of outcomes across all four art units. It is a historical summary and not a prediction 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 Viker Alejandro Lamardo 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: 228 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