LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/DANIEL J BERNARD
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Daniel J Bernard

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 223 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAY 2015
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Daniel J Bernard has allowed 171 of 223 decided applications (77%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

77% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2189 · 63%AU 2182 · 90%AU 2132 · 85%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Daniel J Bernard's public record spans 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 223 disposed applications, 171 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 77%. The allowance rate varies across the examiner's art units, ranging from 63% to 90%. This pooled figure aggregates decisions from multiple art units and reflects the examiner's historical record over the span covered by available data.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates allowance rates across multiple art units, presenting an overall historical figure rather than unit-specific data. The 77% allowance rate describes past dispositions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The range (63% to 90%) reflects variation among individual art units but does not identify which rate applies to which unit. Pooled statistics provide context for the examiner's general record across TC 2100.

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 2189
99 APPS · 63% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

63% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 77%
DISPOSITION62 / 37 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.6 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.4 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility24% · art unit 44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)24%
§103 — Obviousness87% · art unit 72%
§112 — Written description & definiteness43%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW92%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW53%+39 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 24 decided applications with an interview and 75 without.

ART UNIT 2182
70 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines data-processing methods for specific functions, and processing data by its order or content.

90% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION63 / 7 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.7 moart unit avg 24.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.8 moart unit avg 37.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility47% · art unit 31%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)32%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 76%
§112 — Written description & definiteness68%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW95%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW88%+7 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 20 decided applications with an interview and 50 without.

ART UNIT 2132
54 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

85% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION46 / 8 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.6 moart unit avg 27.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY46.1 moart unit avg 41 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility33% · art unit 21%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)38%
§103 — Obviousness83% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness62%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW97%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW67%+30 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 33 decided applications with an interview and 21 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Daniel J Bernard

  • What is Daniel J Bernard's overall allowance rate?
    77% across 223 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    3 art units (2132, 2182, 2189), with allowance rates pooled across all of them.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 63% to 90% across the examiner's art units.
  • Does the pooled rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The 77% rate describes historical dispositions and is not a prediction of any specific 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 Daniel J Bernard 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: 223 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