LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/EVRAL E BODDEN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Evral E Bodden

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 730 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 Evral E Bodden has allowed 538 of 730 decided applications (74%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

74% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2193 · 91%AU 2197 · 57%AU 2192 · 39%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Evral E Bodden maintains a public record of 755 total applications across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 730 disposed applications, 538 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 74%. The examiner's allowance rate varies across the three art units, ranging from 39% to 91%. This pooled record represents activity spanning multiple areas within TC 2100 and reflects the aggregate outcome of applications examined across these art units.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates activity across multiple art units in TC 2100. The 74% allowance rate describes past outcomes on 730 decided applications and is not a prediction of the outcome for any specific application. The range of 39% to 91% reflects variation among individual art units; the overall figure blends these different allowance rates. Pooled statistics describe historical patterns 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 2193
426 APPS · 91% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines software engineering, and error detection, correction, and monitoring.

91% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 70%
DISPOSITION363 / 38 / 25allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.6 moart unit avg 30.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY30.6 moart unit avg 44 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility44% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)55%
§103 — Obviousness86% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness45%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW94%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW88%+6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 182 decided applications with an interview and 219 without.

ART UNIT 2197
263 APPS · 57% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines program control and execution, and software engineering.

57% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 69%
DISPOSITION149 / 114 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.6 moart unit avg 26 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY54 moart unit avg 44.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility50% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)51%
§103 — Obviousness87% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness33%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW71%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW45%+26 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 117 decided applications with an interview and 146 without.

ART UNIT 2192
66 APPS · 39% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines software engineering.

39% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION26 / 40 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION41.4 moart unit avg 29.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY60.7 moart unit avg 45.1 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW69%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW12%+57 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 32 decided applications with an interview and 34 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Evral E Bodden

  • What is Examiner Bodden's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 74%, calculated from 538 allowed applications among 730 disposed applications in the examiner's pooled record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Bodden has a public record spanning three art units (2192, 2193, 2197) within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The examiner's allowance rate ranges from 39% to 91% across the three art units, reflecting variation in outcomes by art unit.
  • What does the pooled allowance rate tell me about my application?
    The 74% pooled rate describes past outcomes only and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual applications may differ based on claim scope, prior art, and other case-specific factors.
◈ 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 Evral E Bodden 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: 755 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