LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/DAVID ROBERT VINCENT
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner David Robert Vincent

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 1,016 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 David Robert Vincent has allowed 861 of 1,016 decided applications (85%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

85% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2123 · 84%AU 2129 · 85%AU 2124 · 85%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

David Robert Vincent maintains a public record across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 1,016 decided applications, his allowance rate is 85%. The allowance rate reflects 861 allowed applications and 155 abandonments, pooled across all art units. His record spans art units 2123, 2124, and 2129. Allowance rates across these art units range from 84% to 85%. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's decisions across multiple distinct art units and represents his historical record as a composite.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines an examiner's decisions across multiple art units into a single aggregate profile. The allowance rate and art-unit range shown here represent historical statistics across all the examiner's assignments and are not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Pooled data masks variation within individual art units; granular detail by art unit appears in a separate section. These figures describe past decisions only.

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 2123
506 APPS · 84% ALLOWANCE

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

84% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 51%
DISPOSITION397 / 73 / 36allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30.7 moart unit avg 29.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY40.6 moart unit avg 43.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility66% · art unit 61%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)45%
§103 — Obviousness72% · art unit 85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness48%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW86%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW83%+3 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 162 decided applications with an interview and 308 without.

ART UNIT 2129
413 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE

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

85% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION351 / 62 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.4 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.7 moart unit avg 42.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility33% · art unit 63%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)43%
§103 — Obviousness70% · art unit 75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness91%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW85%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW85%0 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 82 decided applications with an interview and 331 without.

ART UNIT 2124
133 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE

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

85% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 64%
DISPOSITION113 / 20 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.3 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.9 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility70% · art unit 61%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)45%
§103 — Obviousness84% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness90%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW85%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW85%0 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 46 decided applications with an interview and 87 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner David Robert Vincent

  • What is David Robert Vincent's overall allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 85%, calculated over 1,016 decided applications (861 allowed, 155 abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The record spans three art units (2123, 2124, 2129) within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 84% to 85% across the art units with a substantial record.
  • Does this allowance rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. This pooled historical figure describes past decisions and is not a prediction 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 David Robert Vincent 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: 1,052 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