LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/ADAM M QUELER
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Adam M Queler

TECH CENTER 2100 · 6 ART UNITS · 320 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAY 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 6 ART UNITS

Examiner Adam M Queler has allowed 200 of 320 decided applications (63%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

63% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2178 · 63%AU 2177 · 65%AU 2172 · 83%AU 2137 · 31%AU 2145 · 29%AU 2179 · 50%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Adam M Queler maintains a pooled allowance rate of 63% across 320 decided applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His record spans six art units: 2137, 2145, 2172, 2177, 2178, and 2179. Of 324 total applications, 200 were allowed and 120 abandoned. The allowance rate ranges from 63% to 65% across these art units, reflecting variation in the examiner's record within TC 2100.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data across six separate art units within TC 2100. The figures describe the examiner's historical record and are correlational only—not predictions about any specific application. Allowance rates are calculated from decided applications (allowed plus abandoned), excluding pending cases. Art-unit variation exists; individual art-unit rates are reported separately on this page.

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 2178
156 APPS · 63% ALLOWANCE
63% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 54%
DISPOSITION99 / 57 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION33.4 moart unit avg 25.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY52.1 moart unit avg 41.3 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW75%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW58%+17 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 52 decided applications with an interview and 104 without.

ART UNIT 2177
128 APPS · 65% ALLOWANCE
65% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION83 / 45 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION33.1 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY85.7 moart unit avg 40.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility69% · art unit 40%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)50%
§103 — Obviousness78% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness58%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW66%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW64%+2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 47 decided applications with an interview and 81 without.

ART UNIT 2172
16 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
83% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION10 / 2 / 4allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.3 moart unit avg 24.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.1 moart unit avg 44.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility31% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness69%

Based on 16 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2137
13 APPS · 31% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

31% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 68%
DISPOSITION4 / 9 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.6 moart unit avg 25.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY54.7 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility38% · art unit 25%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)62%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness77%

Based on 13 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2145
7 APPS · 29% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

29% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION2 / 5 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION15.6 moart unit avg 26.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.6 moart unit avg 45.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility43% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)86%
§103 — Obviousness86% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness86%

Based on 7 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2179
4 APPS · 50% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
50% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION2 / 2 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION38.8 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY31.8 moart unit avg 43.3 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Adam M Queler

  • What is Adam M Queler's overall allowance rate?
    63%, calculated from 200 allowed applications and 120 abandoned applications (320 decided total).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Six art units in TC 2100: 2137, 2145, 2172, 2177, 2178, and 2179.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 63% to 65% across the examiner's art units. Individual art-unit rates are reported in the separate per-art-unit section.
◈ 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 Adam M Queler 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: 324 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