LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/AARON J SANDERS
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Aaron J Sanders

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 96 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION OCT 2011
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Aaron J Sanders has allowed 49 of 96 decided applications (51%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

51% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2168 · 50%AU 2191 · 100%AU 2169 · 0%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Aaron J Sanders maintains a public record across three art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 96 disposed applications, Sanders issued 49 allowances and 47 abandonments, resulting in an overall allowance rate of 51% across the pooled record. This rate reflects decisions on applications that have been either allowed or abandoned; pending applications are excluded from the calculation. The record spans multiple art units within TC 2100, aggregating examination activity across different subject-matter clusters within the technology center's scope.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates examination outcomes across all art units under Sanders's purview. The allowance rate of 51% describes historical disposal patterns and does not predict outcomes on any individual application. Pooled figures mask variation across individual art units; detailed per-art-unit data may provide more granular insight. Aggregate statistics characterize past activity and are correlational, not causal—they do not indicate how any specific application will be examined or decided.

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 2168
92 APPS · 50% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

50% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION46 / 46 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.3 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY54.8 moart unit avg 43.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility43% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)57%
§103 — Obviousness57% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness57%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW66%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW35%+31 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 44 decided applications with an interview and 48 without.

ART UNIT 2191
3 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines software engineering, and error detection, correction, and monitoring.

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 76%
DISPOSITION3 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY25.4 moart unit avg 41.1 mo
ART UNIT 2169
1 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 47%
DISPOSITION0 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.6 moart unit avg 24.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY31.8 moart unit avg 40 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Aaron J Sanders

  • What is Examiner Sanders's overall allowance rate?
    Sanders's pooled allowance rate is 51%, calculated over 96 disposed applications (49 allowed and 47 abandoned). This figure aggregates outcomes across all art units and is not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does Examiner Sanders work in?
    Sanders maintains a public record across 3 art units (2168, 2169, 2191) in Technology Center 2100. The pooled record combines examination activity from all three units.
  • What is the difference between the total and disposed application counts?
    Total applications (96) include all filings; disposed applications (96) count only those that have been decided (allowed or abandoned). Allowance rate is computed from disposed applications only, excluding pending cases.
  • Does this record apply to my specific application?
    This pooled record reflects historical outcomes and does not predict the outcome of any specific application. Individual cases vary based on claim scope, prior art, examiner interactions, and other factors.
◈ 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 Aaron J Sanders 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: 96 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