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

Examiner Wilson Lee

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 772 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2022
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Wilson Lee has allowed 669 of 772 decided applications (87%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

87% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2155 · 89%AU 2163 · 81%AU 2152 · 91%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Wilson Lee maintains a public record across three art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 772 disposed applications, the allowance rate stands at 87%. This figure represents applications that were allowed or abandoned, pooled across all three art units. The allowance rate ranges from 81% to 91% across these art units, reflecting variation in the record by individual art-unit subject matter. The examiner's record encompasses 669 allowed applications and 103 abandoned applications across TC 2100.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record is pooled across multiple art units within TC 2100. The 87% allowance rate aggregates decided applications from all three units and describes the historical record only—it is not a prediction of outcomes in any specific application. The range (81% to 91%) shows the spread of allowance rates among individual art units but does not identify which rate applies to which unit. Pooled figures are useful for understanding overall patterns but do not forecast results for any particular case.

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 2155
316 APPS · 89% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

89% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION282 / 34 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.3 moart unit avg 27.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.2 moart unit avg 42.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility63% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)79%
§103 — Obviousness60% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness35%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW87%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW90%-3 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 62 decided applications with an interview and 254 without.

ART UNIT 2163
272 APPS · 81% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

81% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 64%
DISPOSITION220 / 52 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.1 moart unit avg 23.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY44.2 moart unit avg 40.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility50% · art unit 51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)79%
§103 — Obviousness63% · art unit 78%
§112 — Written description & definiteness33%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW79%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW81%-2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 39 decided applications with an interview and 233 without.

ART UNIT 2152
184 APPS · 91% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

91% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION167 / 17 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.4 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.1 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility77% · art unit 62%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)48%
§103 — Obviousness73% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness27%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW94%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW89%+5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 69 decided applications with an interview and 115 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Wilson Lee

  • What is Examiner Wilson Lee's overall allowance rate?
    Over 772 disposed applications, the allowance rate is 87%. This comprises 669 allowed and 103 abandoned applications pooled across all art units in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The record spans three art units (2152, 2155, 2163) within Technology Center 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the examiner's art units?
    Allowance rates range from 81% to 91% across these art units. This range reflects variation in the historical record by individual art-unit subject matter.
◈ 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 Wilson Lee 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: 772 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