LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/COURTNEY N HARMON
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Courtney N Harmon

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 468 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 Courtney N Harmon has allowed 304 of 468 decided applications (65%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

65% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2159 · 66%AU 2156 · 54%AU 2161 · 0%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Courtney N Harmon maintains a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 468 disposed applications, the examiner allowed 304 and abandoned 164, yielding a 65% allowance rate. Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 54% to 66%. This pooled figure reflects the examiner's aggregate record and does not describe the outcome of any particular application. The record spans art units 2156, 2159, and 2161.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, presenting an examiner's overall allowance rate as a historical summary. The 65% figure describes past dispositions across all art units combined and is not a prediction for any pending or future application. Allowance rates vary among art units; the range of 54% to 66% reflects that variation. Pooled statistics describe what occurred, not what will occur in any specific case.

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 2159
447 APPS · 66% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

66% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION277 / 140 / 30allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.1 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.4 moart unit avg 45.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility62% · art unit 55%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)41%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness37%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW67%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW65%+2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 276 decided applications with an interview and 141 without.

ART UNIT 2156
50 APPS · 54% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

54% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 69%
DISPOSITION27 / 23 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION13 moart unit avg 20.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY26 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility56% · art unit 56%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)56%
§103 — Obviousness93% · art unit 84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness34%
ART UNIT 2161
1 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 62%
DISPOSITION0 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION15.4 moart unit avg 23.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY23.4 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility100% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)0%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness100%

Based on 1 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Courtney N Harmon

  • What is Examiner Harmon's overall allowance rate?
    65% across 468 disposed applications in TC 2100. This is the rate of allowed applications among all decided cases (allowed and abandoned combined), pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    3 art units: 2156, 2159, and 2161, all within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • Do allowance rates differ among the examiner's art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates across the art units range from 54% to 66%, reflecting variation in the examiner's record by art unit.
  • Is the 65% allowance rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The pooled allowance rate is a historical summary of past dispositions and is not a prediction of the outcome for any specific pending or future application.
◈ 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 Courtney N Harmon 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: 498 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