Examiner Crystal Joy Barnes-Bullock has allowed 1,040 of 1,177 decided applications (88%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Crystal Joy Barnes-Bullock maintains a public record across 7 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 1,177 disposed applications, the allowance rate stands at 88%. The record spans multiple art units (2117, 2121, 2122, 2125, 2126, 2127, 2198), with allowance rates ranging from 85% to 94% across these units. Of the 1,209 total applications, 1,040 were allowed and 137 were abandoned. This pooled figure represents the examiner's aggregate record and does not break down by individual art unit.
A pooled, cross-art-unit record aggregates results from multiple art units into a single overall allowance rate. This aggregate describes the examiner's past record across all assigned units and is correlational, not predictive. The range of 85% to 94% reflects variation among the individual art units but does not identify which specific unit produced which rate. Aggregate figures describe historical performance and are not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
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 →
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.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 57 decided applications with an interview and 375 without.
Primarily examines control or regulating systems.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 31 decided applications with an interview and 166 without.
Primarily examines program control and execution.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 16 decided applications with an interview and 126 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 31 decided applications with an interview and 84 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 26 decided applications with an interview and 83 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Based on 46 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Crystal Joy Barnes-Bullock 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: 1,209 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