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

Examiner Daniel T Pellett

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 506 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 Daniel T Pellett has allowed 405 of 506 decided applications (80%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

80% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2121 · 85%AU 2122 · 73%AU 2129 · 43%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Daniel T Pellett maintains a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 506 decided applications, his allowance rate is 80%, with 405 allowed and 101 abandoned. The allowance rate varies across art units, ranging from 73% to 85%. This pooled figure reflects his aggregate performance across all three art units and does not represent the outcome of any individual application or art unit.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates performance across multiple art units, masking variation between them. The overall allowance rate of 80% describes past disposition patterns and is not a prediction about any specific application. Art-unit-level records, available separately, show where rates differ. Pooled figures are most useful for understanding broad patterns; individual art-unit data provides finer detail for applications in particular art units.

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 2121
343 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE

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

85% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION272 / 49 / 22allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.6 moart unit avg 27 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.9 moart unit avg 39.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility69% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)62%
§103 — Obviousness74% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness61%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW88%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW81%+7 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 160 decided applications with an interview and 161 without.

ART UNIT 2122
178 APPS · 73% ALLOWANCE

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

73% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION130 / 48 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.1 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.3 moart unit avg 39.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility52% · art unit 55%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)75%
§103 — Obviousness84% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness54%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW82%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW67%+15 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 68 decided applications with an interview and 110 without.

ART UNIT 2129
7 APPS · 43% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

43% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION3 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.5 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY49.8 moart unit avg 42.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility100% · art unit 63%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness50% · art unit 75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness83%

Based on 7 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Daniel T Pellett

  • What is Daniel T Pellett's overall allowance rate?
    80%, based on 506 decided applications (405 allowed, 101 abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    3 art units (2121, 2122, 2129) within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. Across the three art units, allowance rates range from 73% to 85%. Per-art-unit breakdowns are available in the art-unit detail section.
  • Is the pooled allowance rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The pooled rate describes past dispositions aggregated across multiple art units and subject matters. It is not a prediction of the outcome 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 T Pellett 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: 528 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