LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/ERIK V STITT
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Erik V Stitt

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 317 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION FEB 2022
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Erik V Stitt has allowed 137 of 317 decided applications (43%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

43% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2145 · 52%AU 2141 · 49%AU 2174 · 14%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Erik V Stitt maintains a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 317 disposed applications, 137 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 43%. The allowance rate ranges from 14% to 52% across these art units, reflecting variation in the examiner's record within the technology center. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes across multiple distinct art units and does not constitute a prediction for any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record combines outcomes from three separate art units within TC 2100. The overall allowance rate of 43% is an aggregate statistic and reflects the examiner's historical disposal decisions across these units. The range of 14% to 52% indicates that allowance rates differ among individual art units. Pooled figures describe past record only and are not predictions about any particular application or technology within the technology center.

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 2145
136 APPS · 52% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

52% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION71 / 65 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.4 moart unit avg 26.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY69.8 moart unit avg 45.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility52% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)82%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness68%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW64%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW26%+38 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 94 decided applications with an interview and 42 without.

ART UNIT 2141
117 APPS · 49% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

49% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION57 / 60 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.8 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY67.9 moart unit avg 47.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility48% · art unit 49%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)47%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness42%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW63%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW25%+38 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 73 decided applications with an interview and 44 without.

ART UNIT 2174
64 APPS · 14% ALLOWANCE
14% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION9 / 55 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY49.5 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility29% · art unit 33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)86%
§103 — Obviousness71% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness29%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW33%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW0%+33 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 27 decided applications with an interview and 37 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Erik V Stitt

  • What is Erik V Stitt's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's overall allowance rate is 43%, based on 137 allowed applications out of 317 disposed applications pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Erik V Stitt's public record spans 3 art units within TC 2100: art units 2141, 2145, and 2174.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across the examiner's art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 14% to 52% across the examiner's art units, indicating variation in historical disposal outcomes among the units covered.
  • What does this pooled record represent?
    This pooled record aggregates all disposed applications across 3 art units and reflects historical outcomes only. It is not a prediction for any individual 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 Erik V Stitt 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: 317 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