LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/BRENT JOHNSTON HOOVER
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Brent Johnston Hoover

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 391 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Brent Johnston Hoover has allowed 327 of 391 decided applications (84%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

84% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2127 · 82%AU 2125 · 87%AU 2122 · 0%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Brent Johnston Hoover maintains a pooled allowance rate of 84% across 391 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His public record spans three art units: 2122, 2125, and 2127. The allowance rate across these art units ranges from 82% to 87%, reflecting variation in the examiner's record within TC 2100. Of 439 total applications, 327 were allowed and 64 were abandoned. This pooled figure aggregates all decided cases across the art units and describes the historical record only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines results from multiple art units into a single aggregate allowance rate. This figure describes past dispositions and is not a prediction of outcomes on any specific application. The range (82% to 87%) shows that allowance rates vary across the examiner's individual art units. Pooled statistics are useful for understanding an examiner's overall pattern but do not predict results in any particular case or art unit.

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
309 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

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

82% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION215 / 46 / 48allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29.7 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY42.3 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility72% · art unit 51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)79%
§103 — Obviousness75% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness70%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW92%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW66%+26 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 165 decided applications with an interview and 96 without.

ART UNIT 2125
129 APPS · 87% ALLOWANCE

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

87% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 75%
DISPOSITION112 / 17 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.7 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY40.2 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility58% · art unit 50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)90%
§103 — Obviousness91% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness69%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW90%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW80%+10 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 84 decided applications with an interview and 45 without.

ART UNIT 2122
1 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION0 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30.6 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.7 moart unit avg 39.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility100% · art unit 55%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness100%

Based on 1 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Brent Johnston Hoover

  • What is Examiner Hoover's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 84%, calculated over 391 disposed applications (allowed and abandoned combined, excluding pending cases).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Hoover has a public record spanning three art units within TC 2100: 2122, 2125, and 2127.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 82% to 87% across the examiner's art units, reflecting variation within his record in the technology center.
  • What does this pooled record mean for my application?
    Pooled statistics describe the examiner's historical record and are not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual results vary by art unit, technology, and application facts.
◈ 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 Brent Johnston Hoover 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: 439 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