LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/BEAU D SPRATT
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Beau D Spratt

TECH CENTER 2100 · 1 ART UNIT · 457 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
79%vs 52% art-unit average+27 pts

Examiner Beau D Spratt has allowed 362 of 457 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

allowed362abandoned95pending41· pending excluded from the rate
DATA UPDATED JULY 14, 2026
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Beau D Spratt maintains a public record across 1 art unit in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across hundreds of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate stands at 79%, meaning that of applications with final dispositions (allowed or abandoned), 79% were allowed. This rate represents the examiner's historical record on decided applications and is not a prediction for any specific pending application. The pooled figure aggregates all work across the examiner's assigned art units.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across all art units assigned to an examiner and reflects past decisions on applications that reached final disposition. The allowance rate reported here is a historical average derived from hundreds of decided cases and does not predict outcomes for individual pending applications. Pooled statistics describe the examiner's overall record without isolating variation by art unit or application type. These figures are correlational and do not establish causation between any practice and allowance outcomes.

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 2143
498 APPS · 79% ALLOWANCE
79% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 52%
DISPOSITION362 / 95 / 41allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.9 moart unit avg 29.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.3 moart unit avg 45.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
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 eligibility46%art unit 52%6 pts
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)94%no art-unit benchmark
§103 — Obviousness98%art unit 94%+4 pts
§112 — Written description & definiteness38%no art-unit benchmark
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW86%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW63%+23 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 320 decided applications with an interview and 137 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Beau D Spratt

  • What is Examiner Spratt's allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 79% across hundreds of decided applications pooled across all assigned art units. This is the share of applications with final dispositions (allowed or abandoned) that were allowed.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's public record spans 1 art unit in TC 2100.
  • Does a pooled allowance rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. A pooled allowance rate is a historical aggregate of past decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual cases vary by claim scope, prior art, and examination.
  • What is the sample size for this record?
    The pooled record covers hundreds of decided applications.
◈ 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.

Patent prosecution at Lynch LLPApplication 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 Beau D Spratt 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 July 14, 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: 498 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