LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/BRANDON S COLE
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Brandon S Cole

TECH CENTER 2100 · 2 ART UNITS · 504 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS

Examiner Brandon S Cole has allowed 408 of 504 decided applications (81%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

81% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2128 · 75%AU 2122 · 88%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Brandon S Cole maintains a public record across two art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 504 disposed applications, he has allowed 408, yielding an 81% allowance rate. The record spans art units 2122 and 2128. Allowance rates across these art units range from 75% to 88%, reflecting variation in the composition and outcomes within the pooled data. The 81% figure represents decisions on applications already concluded—pending applications are excluded from this calculation.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates the examiner's performance across multiple art units within TC 2100. The allowance rate of 81% describes historical outcomes on 504 decided applications and is not a prediction for any specific application. Rates vary across individual art units (75% to 88%), which is typical when different art units are combined. Aggregate figures describe past record; individual applications depend on claim scope, prior art, and prosecution activity.

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 2128
330 APPS · 75% ALLOWANCE

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

75% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION196 / 66 / 68allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.8 moart unit avg 30 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.6 moart unit avg 46.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility66% · art unit 65%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)75%
§103 — Obviousness69% · art unit 84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness44%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW72%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW78%-6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 140 decided applications with an interview and 122 without.

ART UNIT 2122
242 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE

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

88% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION212 / 30 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.6 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.4 moart unit avg 39.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility21% · art unit 55%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)76%
§103 — Obviousness88% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness29%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW90%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW85%+5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 105 decided applications with an interview and 137 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Brandon S Cole

  • What is Brandon S Cole's overall allowance rate?
    81% over 504 disposed applications. This represents allowed applications as a percentage of all decided applications (allowed plus abandoned), with pending applications excluded.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Two art units: 2122 and 2128, both within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • Do allowance rates vary across the examiner's art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 75% to 88% across the examiner's art units, reflecting differences in the applications and outcomes within each unit.
  • What does the 81% allowance rate predict for my application?
    The historical rate is not a prediction for any specific application. Outcomes depend on claim scope, prior art, and prosecution details unique to each case.
◈ 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 Brandon S Cole 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: 572 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