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

Examiner Eric J Bycer

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 547 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 J Bycer has allowed 385 of 547 decided applications (70%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

70% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2173 · 65%AU 2141 · 94%AU 2143 · 0%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Eric J Bycer maintains a public record across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 547 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate stands at 70%. The record spans art units 2141, 2143, and 2173. Allowance rates across these art units range from 65% to 94%, reflecting variation in outcomes within the pooled portfolio. Of 570 total applications, 385 were allowed and 162 abandoned. This aggregate record describes the examiner's past dispositions and does not constitute a prediction for any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates the examiner's work across multiple art units in TC 2100. The 70% allowance rate is calculated from all decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) and represents historical outcomes, not a forecast. The range of 65% to 94% across individual art units shows that outcomes vary by art unit; the pool figure is a summary, not a unit-specific metric. Historical data describes past patterns and is correlational 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 2173
445 APPS · 65% ALLOWANCE
65% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION290 / 155 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.3 moart unit avg 25.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.1 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility39% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)78%
§103 — Obviousness95% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness72%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW85%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW33%+52 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 275 decided applications with an interview and 170 without.

ART UNIT 2141
124 APPS · 94% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

94% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION95 / 6 / 23allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.9 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.6 moart unit avg 47.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility53% · art unit 49%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)82%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness69%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW97%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW86%+11 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 73 decided applications with an interview and 28 without.

ART UNIT 2143
1 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 52%
DISPOSITION0 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20 moart unit avg 29.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY26.4 moart unit avg 45.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 94%
§112 — Written description & definiteness100%

Based on 1 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Eric J Bycer

  • What is Eric J Bycer's overall allowance rate?
    Across 547 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100, the allowance rate is 70%.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The record spans three art units: 2141, 2143, and 2173, all within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 65% to 94% across the examiner's art units. The pooled 70% is an aggregate and does not apply uniformly to each unit.
  • What do these figures mean for my application?
    Historical statistics describe past dispositions and are not predictions for specific applications. Outcomes depend on claim scope, prior art, and examination specifics.
◈ 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 J Bycer 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: 570 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