LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/CHARLES D ADAMS
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Charles D Adams

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 476 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 Charles D Adams has allowed 209 of 476 decided applications (44%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

44% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2152 · 50%AU 2164 · 27%AU 2165 · 97%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Charles D Adams maintains a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His pooled allowance rate is 44% over 476 disposed applications. The allowance rate ranges from 27% to 97% across these art units, reflecting variation in the record across different subject areas within the technology center. A total of 514 applications appear in his record, of which 209 were allowed and 267 were abandoned.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units within TC 2100. The overall allowance rate and application counts describe the examiner's past disposition history and are not predictions about any specific application. Variation across art units reflects differences in subject matter and case complexity within the technology center. Applicants may review individual art-unit records for more granular data relevant to their specific technology area.

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 2152
226 APPS · 50% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

50% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION113 / 113 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.4 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY54.6 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility79% · art unit 62%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)89%
§103 — Obviousness99% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness51%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW67%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW24%+43 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 136 decided applications with an interview and 90 without.

ART UNIT 2164
211 APPS · 27% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

27% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 62%
DISPOSITION58 / 153 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.9 moart unit avg 22.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY65.2 moart unit avg 43.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility65% · art unit 58%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)53%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness33%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW47%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW7%+40 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 108 decided applications with an interview and 103 without.

ART UNIT 2165
77 APPS · 97% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

97% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION38 / 1 / 38allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.1 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.7 moart unit avg 39.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility89% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)95%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness44%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Charles D Adams

  • What is Charles D Adams's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 44%, calculated over 476 disposed applications (allowed and abandoned combined, excluding pending cases).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Charles D Adams has a public record spanning 3 art units (2152, 2164, 2165) within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 27% to 97% across the art units, reflecting variation in outcomes by subject area within the technology center.
  • What do these figures mean for my application?
    These statistics describe the examiner's past record only. They are not predictions of the outcome of any specific application and do not account for application-specific facts, claim scope, or 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 Charles D Adams 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: 514 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