LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/CHRISTIAN CHACE
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Christian Chace

TECH CENTER 2100 · 5 ART UNITS · 160 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2017
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 5 ART UNITS

Examiner Christian Chace has allowed 130 of 160 decided applications (81%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

81% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2187 · 76%AU 2189 · 92%AU 2186 · 91%AU 2131 · 67%AU 2129 · 0%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Christian Chace holds a public record of 160 disposed applications across 5 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of these decided applications, 130 were allowed and 30 abandoned, yielding an allowance rate of 81%. The examiner's allowance rates vary across the art units served, ranging from 76% to 92%. This pooled figure aggregates work across distinct subject areas and does not reflect performance on any single application or art unit.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's work across multiple art units, each with potentially different allowance rates. The overall allowance rate—here 81% across 160 decided applications—describes historical disposition and is not a forecast for any particular case. The range (76% to 92%) illustrates variation among the art units represented. Pooled statistics are correlational snapshots of past work and carry no predictive weight for future 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
91 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

76% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION69 / 22 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.9 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.3 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)17%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness17%
ART UNIT 2189
53 APPS · 92% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

92% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 77%
DISPOSITION49 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.9 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.8 moart unit avg 39 mo
ART UNIT 2186
11 APPS · 91% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

91% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION10 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION8.3 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY14.2 moart unit avg 35 mo
ART UNIT 2131
3 APPS · 67% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

67% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 56%
DISPOSITION2 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.4 moart unit avg 26.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.8 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0% · art unit 29%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%

Based on 3 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2129
2 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION0 / 2 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30.9 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.1 moart unit avg 42.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility50% · art unit 63%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)50%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%

Based on 2 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Christian Chace

  • What is Christian Chace's overall allowance rate?
    81% across 160 disposed applications in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    5 art units (2129, 2131, 2186, 2187, 2189) within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 76% to 92%. These per-unit figures are available in the detailed art-unit section.
  • Does this record predict the outcome of my application?
    No. Historical allowance rates are correlational descriptions of past dispositions 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 Christian Chace 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: 160 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