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

Examiner Eric Cardwell

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 743 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 Eric Cardwell has allowed 660 of 743 decided applications (89%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

89% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2139 · 92%AU 2131 · 91%AU 2189 · 82%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Eric Cardwell has a pooled allowance rate of 89% across 743 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His public record spans three art units: 2131, 2139, and 2189. Of the 772 total applications in his record, 660 were allowed and 83 were abandoned. The allowance rate across his art units ranges from 82% to 92%, reflecting variation in the decided rates among the individual units within TC 2100.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates three separate art units within TC 2100. The 89% allowance rate represents past decisions on 743 applications and describes the examiner's historical record across all three units combined. This aggregate figure is a summary of prior dispositions and is not a prediction of the outcome of any specific application. Individual art units may show different allowance rates, visible in the per-unit breakdown.

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 2139
302 APPS · 92% ALLOWANCE

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

92% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION252 / 21 / 29allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION15.5 moart unit avg 24 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY25.7 moart unit avg 37.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility18% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)84%
§103 — Obviousness72% · art unit 80%
§112 — Written description & definiteness38%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW96%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW89%+7 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 112 decided applications with an interview and 161 without.

ART UNIT 2131
258 APPS · 91% ALLOWANCE

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

91% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 56%
DISPOSITION234 / 24 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16.3 moart unit avg 26.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY30.4 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility17% · art unit 29%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)84%
§103 — Obviousness71% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness28%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW100%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW86%+14 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 88 decided applications with an interview and 170 without.

ART UNIT 2189
212 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

82% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 77%
DISPOSITION174 / 38 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.6 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.5 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility23% · art unit 44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)76%
§103 — Obviousness69% · art unit 72%
§112 — Written description & definiteness28%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW90%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW80%+10 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 49 decided applications with an interview and 163 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Eric Cardwell

  • What is Eric Cardwell's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 89%, calculated over 743 disposed applications across all three art units.
  • How many art units does Eric Cardwell examine in?
    His public record spans three art units within TC 2100: 2131, 2139, and 2189.
  • Does his allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 82% to 92% across his art units, reflecting different rates in individual units.
  • What does the 89% rate mean for my application?
    The 89% rate describes his past record on 743 decided applications 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 Eric Cardwell 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: 772 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