LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/CHERI L. HARRINGTON
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Cheri L. Harrington

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 329 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 Cheri L. Harrington has allowed 226 of 329 decided applications (69%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

69% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2187 · 69%AU 2176 · 80%AU 2118 · 58%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Cheri L. Harrington has a public record of 367 total applications across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 329 disposed applications, 226 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 69%. The examiner's allowance rate ranges from 58% to 80% across these art units, reflecting variation in outcomes within the pooled record. This aggregate figure describes past dispositions and does not predict results in any particular application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, masking individual unit performance. The overall allowance rate of 69% represents applications decided (allowed or abandoned) and excludes pending cases. Ranges in allowance rates across art units show that outcomes vary by subject matter and art unit. Aggregate statistics describe historical record only and are not forecasts for specific applications.

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 2187
184 APPS · 69% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

69% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION127 / 57 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.6 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.2 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility29% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)94%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness81%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW79%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW54%+25 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 112 decided applications with an interview and 72 without.

ART UNIT 2176
107 APPS · 80% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

80% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 59%
DISPOSITION55 / 14 / 38allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.2 moart unit avg 23.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.9 moart unit avg 40.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility21% · art unit 41%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)92%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness76%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW86%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW69%+17 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 43 decided applications with an interview and 26 without.

ART UNIT 2118
76 APPS · 58% ALLOWANCE
58% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION44 / 32 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.6 moart unit avg 22.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.3 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility22% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)86%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness92%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW73%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW35%+38 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 45 decided applications with an interview and 31 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Cheri L. Harrington

  • What is Cheri L. Harrington's overall allowance rate?
    69% across 329 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    3 art units: 2118, 2176, and 2187.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 58% to 80% across the examiner's art units, indicating variation in disposal rates by subject area.
  • Does this record predict the outcome of my application?
    No. Historical allowance rates describe past dispositions only and are not predictions of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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 Cheri L. Harrington 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: 367 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