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

Examiner David Robertson

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 217 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION AUG 2013
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner David Robertson has allowed 160 of 217 decided applications (74%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

74% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2121 · 68%AU 2127 · 81%AU 2163 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

David Robertson maintains a public record across three art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 217 decided applications, his allowance rate is 74%, with 160 allowed and 57 abandoned. The allowance rate ranges from 68% to 81% across these art units, reflecting variation in the composition and outcomes within individual art-unit dockets. This pooled figure aggregates his record across all three art units and describes past dispositions without predicting results on any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines outcomes across multiple art units into a single allowance rate and range. The overall 74% figure reflects historical decisions across different subject areas and examiner assignments within TC 2100. The range (68%–81%) shows dispersion among individual art units but does not identify which art unit produced which rate. Pooled statistics describe what occurred in the past and are not predictions about future applications.

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
126 APPS · 68% ALLOWANCE

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

68% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION86 / 40 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION35.2 moart unit avg 27 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY53.6 moart unit avg 39.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility10% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)70%
§103 — Obviousness80% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness80%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW71%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW63%+8 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 86 decided applications with an interview and 40 without.

ART UNIT 2127
90 APPS · 81% ALLOWANCE

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

81% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION73 / 17 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.8 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.3 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20% · art unit 51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)68%
§103 — Obviousness72% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness53%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW83%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW81%+2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 18 decided applications with an interview and 72 without.

ART UNIT 2163
1 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 64%
DISPOSITION1 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION7.4 moart unit avg 23.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCYart unit avg 40.3 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner David Robertson

  • What is David Robertson's overall allowance rate?
    74% over 217 decided applications (160 allowed, 57 abandoned).
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    Three art units (2121, 2127, 2163) within Technology Center 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    The allowance rate ranges from 68% to 81% across the three art units.
  • Does the pooled rate predict the outcome of my application?
    No. Pooled figures describe past decisions and are not predictions of results on 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 David Robertson 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: 217 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