Examiner Austin James Hicks has allowed 316 of 416 decided applications (76%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Austin James Hicks maintains a public record across five art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 416 decided applications, his allowance rate stands at 76%. The allowance rate ranges from 71% to 83% across these art units, reflecting variation in outcomes by art-unit assignment. Of 485 total applications in his record, 316 were allowed and 100 were abandoned. These figures represent the examiner's pooled historical disposition and do not constitute prediction for any specific application.
A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, smoothing variation that exists within individual assignments. The overall allowance rate of 76% describes past outcomes across decided applications and is historical data only—not a forecast for any particular case. The range (71% to 83%) indicates that outcomes vary by art unit. Detailed per-art-unit records, where available separately, provide more granular context for specific technical domains.
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 →
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.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 75 decided applications with an interview and 85 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 65 decided applications with an interview and 77 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 20 decided applications with an interview and 23 without.
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Based on 47 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Primarily examines control or regulating systems.
Based on 24 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Austin James Hicks 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: 485 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