LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/ERIKA A KRETZMER
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Erika A Kretzmer

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 202 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2019
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Erika A Kretzmer has allowed 98 of 202 decided applications (49%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

49% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2196 · 46%AU 2198 · 55%AU 2192 · 30%AU 2197 · 64%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Erika A Kretzmer maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) spanning four art units: 2192, 2196, 2197, and 2198. Across 202 disposed applications, 98 were allowed and 104 abandoned, yielding an allowance rate of 49%. The allowance rate across her art units ranges from 30% to 55%, reflecting variation in her record within TC 2100. This pooled figure represents her aggregate history and does not constitute a prediction for any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates the examiner's performance across multiple art units within TC 2100. The pooled allowance rate of 49% describes past dispositions and is a historical aggregate, not a forecast. Because different art units may have different allowance rates, the overall figure masks variation. The stated range (30% to 55%) indicates that disparity. Pooled data describes the examiner's past record 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 2196
94 APPS · 46% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

46% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION43 / 51 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.2 moart unit avg 27.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.5 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility64% · art unit 44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)91%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness78%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW61%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW0%+61 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 70 decided applications with an interview and 24 without.

ART UNIT 2198
77 APPS · 55% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution.

55% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 83%
DISPOSITION42 / 35 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION41.3 moart unit avg 25.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY72.4 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility47% · art unit 50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)52%
§103 — Obviousness86% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness77%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW67%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW48%+19 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 27 decided applications with an interview and 50 without.

ART UNIT 2192
20 APPS · 30% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines software engineering.

30% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION6 / 14 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION44.2 moart unit avg 29.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY55.8 moart unit avg 45.1 mo
ART UNIT 2197
11 APPS · 64% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines program control and execution, and software engineering.

64% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 69%
DISPOSITION7 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION43.7 moart unit avg 26 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY74.2 moart unit avg 44.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness100%

Based on 11 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Erika A Kretzmer

  • What is Erika A Kretzmer's overall allowance rate?
    Her allowance rate is 49%, based on 202 disposed applications (98 allowed, 104 abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Erika A Kretzmer's record spans four art units in TC 2100: 2192, 2196, 2197, and 2198.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across her art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 30% to 55% across her art units, indicating variation within TC 2100.
  • Is the 49% rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The 49% rate is a historical aggregate of past dispositions and is not a prediction for 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 Erika A Kretzmer 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: 202 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