LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/CHRISTOPHER DILLON DEVORE
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Christopher Dillon Devore

TECH CENTER 2100 · 1 ART UNIT · 11 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT
45%vs 65% art-unit average20 pts

Examiner Christopher Dillon Devore has allowed 5 of 11 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

allowed5abandoned6pending43· pending excluded from the rate
DATA UPDATED JULY 14, 2026
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Christopher Dillon Devore maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across a small number of decided applications, his allowance rate stands at 45%. This figure represents the percentage of applications in his pooled record that were allowed, measured against all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined). The examiner's work spans a single art unit within TC 2100. The allowance rate is calculated from decided applications only; pending applications are excluded from this measurement.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates Devore's examination history across all art units within his assigned technology center. The allowance rate reflects past outcomes on decided applications and describes the examiner's historical record. Aggregate statistics characterize overall patterns but are not predictions about any specific application. Individual art units may show different rates; those details appear separately in specialized art-unit analyses.

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 2129
54 APPS · 45% ALLOWANCE

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

45% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION5 / 6 / 43allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION36.3 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48.4 moart unit avg 42.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
REJECTION RATE = SHARE OF THIS EXAMINER'S APPLICATIONS THAT DREW ≥1 OFFICE-ACTION REJECTION IN WHICH THE GROUND APPEARS

Grounds can co-occur, so the four don't sum to 100%. The art-unit figure is the unweighted mean across examiners in the art unit; §102 and §112 carry no art-unit benchmark.

§101 — Subject-matter eligibility94%art unit 62%+32 pts
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)49%no art-unit benchmark
§103 — Obviousness100%art unit 76%+24 pts
§112 — Written description & definiteness83%no art-unit benchmark
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Christopher Dillon Devore

  • What is Christopher Dillon Devore's overall allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 45%, measured as the percentage of allowed applications within his pooled decided-application record.
  • How many art units does Devore cover?
    Devore's public record spans one art unit within Technology Center 2100.
  • What does the allowance rate measure?
    The allowance rate is the share of decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) that were allowed. Pending applications are not included in this calculation.
  • Does this rate predict outcomes in a specific application?
    No. This pooled figure describes historical outcomes and is not a prediction of any specific application's result.
◈ HOW LYNCH LLP CAN HELP

Where to go next.

Lynch LLP represents applicants in patent prosecution before the USPTO. These are general resources about the firm's services — not advice about this examiner or any specific application.

Drafting and prosecuting patent applicationsApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.PTAB trials and patent appealsAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Building a patent portfolioHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Booking a consultationFree and paid consultation options across the firm's attorneys.
◈ 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 Christopher Dillon Devore 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 July 14, 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: 54 applications.

Rejection rates. Each §-rate is the share of this examiner's applications that drew at least one office-action rejection in which that statutory ground appears; applications with no rejection on record are excluded, and because grounds can co-occur the four do not sum to 100%. The art-unit figure beside each is the unweighted mean of the per-examiner rates across the art unit, published for §101 and §103 only. Beside the overall allowance rate we show a benchmark: for a single-art-unit examiner it is exactly that art unit's average, labeled “art-unit average”; for an examiner spanning several art units it is the “weighted peer average” — the per-art-unit averages, weighted by this examiner's application count in each — labeled distinctly because it is a blended figure, not any single art unit's average. Both are built from the same per-art-unit averages the panels show.

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