LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/CANDICE A RANKIN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Candice A Rankin

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 131 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAR 2019
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Candice A Rankin has allowed 100 of 131 decided applications (76%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

76% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2132 · 74%AU 2182 · 84%AU 2135 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Candice A Rankin has a public record of 131 disposed applications across Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security), spanning three art units. Of the 131 decided applications, 100 were allowed and 31 were abandoned, yielding an allowance rate of 76%. This rate is based on the pooled record across all three art units in which the examiner has worked. The figure reflects historical outcomes on applications that have reached final disposition.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This examiner's record pools data from three separate art units within TC 2100. The 76% allowance rate describes past outcomes across all decided applications in that combined record and does not constitute a prediction for any specific pending application. Pooled figures aggregate different art-unit cohorts and reflect correlational data only. Individual art-unit records, where available separately, may show variation from the pooled rate.

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 2132
107 APPS · 74% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

74% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION79 / 28 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.8 moart unit avg 27.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.5 moart unit avg 41 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility8% · art unit 21%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)51%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness43%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW83%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW69%+14 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 40 decided applications with an interview and 67 without.

ART UNIT 2182
19 APPS · 84% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines data-processing methods for specific functions, and processing data by its order or content.

84% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION16 / 3 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.7 moart unit avg 24.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.4 moart unit avg 37.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility17% · art unit 31%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 76%
§112 — Written description & definiteness28%

Based on 19 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2135
5 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION5 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.3 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.2 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20% · art unit 21%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)20%
§103 — Obviousness80% · art unit 84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness60%

Based on 5 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Candice A Rankin

  • What is the overall allowance rate for Examiner Rankin?
    The allowance rate is 76%, based on 100 allowed applications and 31 abandoned applications out of 131 total disposed applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Examiner Rankin's public record spans three art units (2132, 2135, 2182) within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate apply to my application?
    No. The 76% rate describes past outcomes in the examiner's pooled record and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
  • What technology areas does this examiner cover?
    The examiner works in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
◈ 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 Candice A Rankin 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: 131 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