LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Christopher W Carter

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 381 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 Christopher W Carter has allowed 288 of 381 decided applications (76%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

76% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2117 · 81%AU 2118 · 65%AU 2126 · 20%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Christopher W Carter maintains an allowance rate of 76% across 381 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His record spans three art units: 2117, 2118, and 2126. Of the 435 total applications in his record, 288 were allowed and 93 were abandoned. The allowance rate ranges from 65% to 81% across these art units, reflecting variation in outcomes by art unit but a consistent pooled record across his practice.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data from three separate art units within TC 2100. The overall allowance rate of 76% describes past decisions on 381 closed applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Cross-art-unit records combine different subject areas and examiner focus areas. Individual art-unit rates may differ from the pooled figure. Historical aggregates describe past performance only.

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 2117
331 APPS · 81% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines control or regulating systems.

81% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 74%
DISPOSITION225 / 52 / 54allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.6 moart unit avg 20.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.9 moart unit avg 33.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility60% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)89%
§103 — Obviousness83% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness53%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW88%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW74%+14 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 137 decided applications with an interview and 140 without.

ART UNIT 2118
94 APPS · 65% ALLOWANCE
65% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION61 / 33 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.6 moart unit avg 22.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.1 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility31% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness41%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW83%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW51%+32 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 41 decided applications with an interview and 53 without.

ART UNIT 2126
10 APPS · 20% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

20% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION2 / 8 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.4 moart unit avg 29.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.5 moart unit avg 44.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility40% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness60%

Based on 10 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Christopher W Carter

  • What is Christopher W Carter's overall allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 76%, based on 381 disposed (decided) applications across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    His public record spans three art units: 2117, 2118, and 2126, all within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across his art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 65% to 81% across his art units, indicating variation by unit.
  • What does this pooled record tell me about my specific application?
    This pooled record is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. It describes past decisions aggregated across multiple art units and is historical context only.
◈ 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 W Carter 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: 435 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