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

Examiner Jianye Wu

TECH CENTER 2400 · 2 ART UNITS · 955 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
83%vs 76% weighted peer average+7 pts

Examiner Jianye Wu has allowed 795 of 955 decided applications.

795 allowed
160 abandoned
Plus 58 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.
The weighted peer average (76%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 22, 2026
AU 2462 · 85%AU 2416 · 36%

What the data says.reading this examiner

Jianye Wu maintains a public record in Technology Center 2400 across 2 art units. Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's pooled allowance rate is 83%. This represents applications that were allowed or abandoned, excluding pending matters. The allowance rate ranges from 36% to 85% across the examiner's art units, reflecting variation in outcomes by subject area and application characteristics within the technology center.

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units within TC 2400. The overall allowance rate of 83% describes the examiner's historical record on decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Applicants review pooled figures to understand past patterns; individual applications proceed based on claim scope, prior art, and examination specifics unique to each 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 →

The record, art unit by art unit.2 art units

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 2462
977 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

85%
higher than about 67% of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2462
AU avg 77%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 27 examiners with published rates in art unit 2462; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average.

Disposition919 decided applications

782 allowed
137 abandoned
Plus 58 applications still pending — not yet decided, so excluded from the rate.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 20.7mo
disposed 34.4mo
0
36mo
Art-unit average: first action 23.1 mo, disposed 38.3 mo.

Rejection groundsexaminer ● vs art-unit average ○

REJECTION RATE = SHARE OF THIS EXAMINER'S APPLICATIONS THAT DREW ≥1 OFFICE-ACTION REJECTION IN WHICH THE GROUND APPEARS

Grounds can co-occur, so the four don't sum to 100%. The art-unit figure is the unweighted mean across examiners in the art unit; §102 and §112 carry no art-unit benchmark.

§101 — Subject-matter eligibility
AU 24
18%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)
no AU benchmark
28%
§103 — Obviousness
AU 84
82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness
no AU benchmark
52%

Interview benefit

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

without
81%
+10 pts
with
91%

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 368 decided applications with an interview and 551 without.

ART UNIT 2416
36 APPS · 36% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Allowance ratewhere this examiner sits among peers

36%
higher than about 23% of the 144 examiners with published rates in art unit 2416
AU avg 58%
0%
100%
Each short mark is one of the 144 examiners with published rates in art unit 2416; the dot is this examiner. The tick is the art-unit average, computed across all 146 examiners in the unit — a broader group than the 144 published marks, so it can sit apart from them.

Disposition36 decided applications

13 allowed
23 abandoned
No applications pending.

Pendencymonths from filing

filed
first action 39.6mo
disposed 56.2mo
0
60mo
Art-unit average: first action 33.2 mo, disposed 47.8 mo.
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Jianye Wu

  • What is Jianye Wu's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 83% across hundreds of decided applications in TC 2400. This rate reflects applications allowed or abandoned; pending applications are excluded.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Jianye Wu has a public record in 2 art units within Technology Center 2400.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 36% to 85% across the examiner's art units, reflecting differences in application outcomes by subject matter and unit.
◈ HOW LYNCH LLP CAN HELP

Where to go next.

Lynch LLP represents applicants in patent prosecution before the USPTO. These are general resources about the firm's services — not advice about this examiner or any specific application.

Drafting and prosecuting patent applicationsApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.PTAB trials and patent appealsAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Building a patent portfolioHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Booking a consultationFree and paid consultation options across the firm's attorneys.
◈ 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 Jianye Wu has a public record within Technology Center 2400. Statistics are computed from publicly available USPTO records, refreshed on a recurring schedule. This page's data was last updated July 22, 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: 1,013 applications.

Rejection rates. Each §-rate is the share of this examiner's applications that drew at least one office-action rejection in which that statutory ground appears; applications with no rejection on record are excluded, and because grounds can co-occur the four do not sum to 100%. The art-unit figure beside each is the unweighted mean of the per-examiner rates across the art unit, published for §101 and §103 only. Beside the overall allowance rate we show a benchmark: for a single-art-unit examiner it is exactly that art unit's average, labeled “art-unit average”; for an examiner spanning several art units it is the “weighted peer average” — the per-art-unit averages, weighted by this examiner's application count in each — labeled distinctly because it is a blended figure, not any single art unit's average. Both are built from the same per-art-unit averages the panels show.

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