This examiner has a small public record (22applications), so we don't publish a record summary — small samples over-state patterns. The per-art-unit figures below are shown for completeness.
Wenwei Zeng maintains a public record spanning Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security), with work in one art unit. The examiner has disposed of zero applications, meaning no applications have been decided (allowed or abandoned) in the pooled record shown here. With zero decided applications, an allowance rate cannot be calculated. The record reflects 22 total applications, encompassing the full scope of prosecution activity tracked in this data.
This pooled record aggregates the examiner's work across all art units under TC 2100. A pooled allowance rate, when calculable, describes historical disposition only and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Because no applications have been decided in this public record, the aggregate figures do not yet reflect patterns. Individual art-unit data may contain separate information.
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 artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.
Based on 22 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Wenwei Zeng 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: 22 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