LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/CHAD G ERDMAN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Chad G Erdman

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 631 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 Chad G Erdman has allowed 515 of 631 decided applications (82%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

82% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2116 · 82%AU 2115 · 80%AU 2121 · 76%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Chad G Erdman maintains a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His pooled allowance rate is 82% over 631 disposed applications. Among the art units in which he maintains a substantial record, allowance rates range from 76% to 82%. The record aggregates decisions across multiple art units within TC 2100 and represents past dispositions only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled, cross-art-unit record combines allowance data from multiple art units into a single overall figure. This aggregate describes the examiner's historical output across those units and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The range reflects variation among individual art units; the overall rate is a weighted average of decisions already made.

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 2116
544 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines control or regulating systems.

82% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 78%
DISPOSITION409 / 88 / 47allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.3 moart unit avg 24.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY30.5 moart unit avg 37.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility34% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)59%
§103 — Obviousness84% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness59%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW90%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW76%+14 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 216 decided applications with an interview and 281 without.

ART UNIT 2115
105 APPS · 80% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines control or regulating systems, and electric power networks.

80% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 81%
DISPOSITION84 / 21 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.9 moart unit avg 25.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.2 moart unit avg 36.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility16% · art unit 33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)61%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness34%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW89%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW69%+20 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 57 decided applications with an interview and 48 without.

ART UNIT 2121
29 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

76% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION22 / 7 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.5 moart unit avg 27 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34 moart unit avg 39.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility24% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)55%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness34%

Based on 29 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Chad G Erdman

  • What is Chad G Erdman's overall allowance rate?
    82%, based on 631 disposed applications across his art-unit record in TC 2100. This figure excludes pending applications and is calculated as allowed applications divided by total decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    3 art units: 2115, 2116, and 2121, all within Technology Center 2100.
  • Do allowance rates vary across his art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates across his art units range from 76% to 82%. The overall 82% is an aggregate of these individual-unit records.
  • What does the pooled record mean for my application?
    The pooled record describes the examiner's past decisions and is not a prediction of any specific application. Allowance outcome depends on the merits of each application, the particular art unit, and examination of the claims against prior art.
◈ 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 Chad G Erdman 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: 678 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