LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/CHRISTYANN R PULLIAM
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Christyann R Pulliam

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 254 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION FEB 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Christyann R Pulliam has allowed 64 of 254 decided applications (25%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

25% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2178 · 4%AU 2165 · 44%AU 2164 · 23%AU 2124 · 0%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Christyann R Pulliam has a public record of 778 total applications across 4 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 254 disposed applications, 64 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 25%. This rate is calculated from decided cases only and does not include pending applications. The examiner's allowance rate varies across art units, ranging from 4% to 44%. The record reflects activity in multiple areas within TC 2100, with 190 applications abandoned.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data from four separate art units, meaning the 25% figure represents a combined historical rate across different subject areas. Pooled allowance rates describe past decisions across a portfolio of cases and are not predictions about any individual application. Variation across art units—here 4% to 44%—reflects differences in how cases within each unit were resolved. The aggregate figures provide context for the examiner's overall body of work; applicants may consult individual art-unit data for narrower subject-matter focus.

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 2178
603 APPS · 4% ALLOWANCE
4% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 54%
DISPOSITION3 / 76 / 524allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.6 moart unit avg 25.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY29.7 moart unit avg 41.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility33% · art unit 36%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)44%
§103 — Obviousness67% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness44%
ART UNIT 2165
117 APPS · 44% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

44% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION52 / 65 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.7 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY53.5 moart unit avg 39.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility78% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness78% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness56%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW66%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW27%+39 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 53 decided applications with an interview and 64 without.

ART UNIT 2164
40 APPS · 23% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

23% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 62%
DISPOSITION9 / 31 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.1 moart unit avg 22.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY73.9 moart unit avg 43.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility59% · art unit 58%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)64%
§103 — Obviousness91% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness45%

Based on 40 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2124
18 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 64%
DISPOSITION0 / 18 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.3 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.7 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility56% · art unit 61%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)89%
§103 — Obviousness89% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness61%

Based on 18 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Christyann R Pulliam

  • What is Christyann R Pulliam's overall allowance rate?
    25% of 254 disposed applications were allowed. This rate is calculated from decided cases only and excludes pending applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    4 art units (2124, 2164, 2165, 2178) within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 4% to 44%, reflecting different outcomes within each unit.
  • Does this pooled rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. Pooled historical rates describe past decisions 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 Christyann R Pulliam 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: 778 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