LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/ANTHONY T WHITTINGTON
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Anthony T Whittington

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 329 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION NOV 2015
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Anthony T Whittington has allowed 257 of 329 decided applications (78%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

78% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2127 · 82%AU 2126 · 71%AU 2121 · 56%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Anthony T Whittington maintains a public record of 329 decided applications across three art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of these disposed applications, 257 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 78%. The examiner's work spans art units 2121, 2126, and 2127. Allowance rates across these art units range from 71% to 82%. This pooled figure represents the aggregate record across all three art units and reflects historical dispositions only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's allowance rates across multiple art units into a single overall figure. The 78% rate shown here is the historical average of all decided applications across all three art units combined. This aggregate does not predict outcomes on any individual application. Rates vary by art unit; the range reflects this variation. Pooled statistics describe past performance, not future results on any specific 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 2127
226 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

82% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION186 / 40 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.5 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.4 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20% · art unit 51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)34%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness51%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW83%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW82%+1 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 23 decided applications with an interview and 203 without.

ART UNIT 2126
87 APPS · 71% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

71% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION62 / 25 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.8 moart unit avg 29.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.4 moart unit avg 44.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility17% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)93%
§103 — Obviousness68% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness67%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW67%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW72%-5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 15 decided applications with an interview and 72 without.

ART UNIT 2121
16 APPS · 56% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

56% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION9 / 7 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30.6 moart unit avg 27 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.2 moart unit avg 39.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility15% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)77%
§103 — Obviousness46% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness69%

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

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Anthony T Whittington

  • What is Anthony T Whittington's overall allowance rate?
    78%, based on 257 allowed applications out of 329 total decided applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Three art units: 2121, 2126, and 2127, all within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 71% to 82% across these art units.
  • Does this pooled rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. This pooled figure describes past dispositions only and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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 Anthony T Whittington 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: 329 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