Examiner Brian J Detwiler

What the data says.

Brian J Detwiler maintains a public record of 23 disposed applications across Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of those decided applications, 17 were allowed and 6 were abandoned, yielding an allowance rate of 74%. This rate is based on the complete set of applications with final dispositions in the examiner's record. The examiner works within a single art unit, meaning this pooled record represents activity in one substantive area of patent examination.

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates all applications across an examiner's art units into a single allowance rate and disposed count. This aggregate figure describes the examiner's historical record and reflects past dispositions only. The rate is not a prediction for any specific application and does not account for application-specific factors such as claim scope, prior art, or prosecution history. Pooled data provides general context on an examiner's overall disposition pattern without breaking down results by individual art unit or subject matter.

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 →

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.

Questions about Examiner Brian J Detwiler

• 01What is Brian J Detwiler's allowance rate?

  His allowance rate is 74%, based on 23 disposed applications (17 allowed, 6 abandoned).
• 02How many art units does this examiner cover?

  The public record spans one art unit (2173), so this pooled record does not aggregate across multiple specialties.
• 03Does the allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?

  No. The allowance rate describes historical dispositions only and is not a prediction for any specific application. Outcomes depend on the individual application's claims, prior art, and prosecution details.
• 04What technology area does this examiner work in?

  The examiner's record falls within TC 2100, which covers Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

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.