Examiner Charles R Kasenge has allowed 1,373 of 1,624 decided applications (85%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Charles R Kasenge maintains an 85% allowance rate across 1,624 disposed applications pooled from four art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of these decided applications, 1,373 were allowed and 251 were abandoned. The examiner's record spans art units 2116, 2121, 2125, and 2126. Allowance rates across individual art units range from 80% to 89%, reflecting variation in the composition and outcomes of the art units represented in the pooled record.
This pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units in TC 2100. The 85% allowance rate describes past dispositions and is not a prediction of the outcome in any specific pending application. Aggregate figures mask individual art-unit variation; the 80%–89% range illustrates that rate differs by art unit. Pooled statistics describe historical patterns only and do not forecast results based on application characteristics, examiner assignment, or procedural choices.
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 →
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.
Primarily examines control or regulating systems.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 251 decided applications with an interview and 420 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 126 decided applications with an interview and 340 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 92 decided applications with an interview and 170 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 28 decided applications with an interview and 197 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Charles R Kasenge 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: 1,685 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