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

Examiner Frantz Coby

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 523 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAR 2017
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Frantz Coby has allowed 451 of 523 decided applications (86%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

86% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2156 · 90%AU 2161 · 82%AU 2171 · 85%AU 2164 · 78%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Frantz Coby holds a public record of 523 disposed applications across 4 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of those decided applications, 451 were allowed and 72 were abandoned, yielding an overall allowance rate of 86%. The examiner's allowance rates across individual art units range from 78% to 90%. This pooled figure represents the aggregate of the examiner's work across all four art units and does not isolate performance within any single art unit.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates allowance data across multiple art units, presenting an overall picture of an examiner's historical disposition patterns. The allowance rate reflects decided applications only—allowed plus abandoned—and describes past outcomes, not predictions about future applications. Individual art units may have different allowance rates; this pooled summary shows the breadth and range across the examiner's portfolio.

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 2156
282 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

90% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 69%
DISPOSITION254 / 28 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.7 moart unit avg 20.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.5 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility27% · art unit 56%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)53%
§103 — Obviousness45% · art unit 84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness32%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW93%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW90%+3 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 41 decided applications with an interview and 241 without.

ART UNIT 2161
141 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

82% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 62%
DISPOSITION115 / 26 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29 moart unit avg 23.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.7 moart unit avg 39 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW88%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW81%+7 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 17 decided applications with an interview and 124 without.

ART UNIT 2171
60 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE
85% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 56%
DISPOSITION51 / 9 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23 moart unit avg 22 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.9 moart unit avg 37.2 mo
ART UNIT 2164
40 APPS · 78% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

78% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 62%
DISPOSITION31 / 9 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.1 moart unit avg 22.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.6 moart unit avg 43.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility35% · art unit 58%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)62%
§103 — Obviousness81% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness46%

Based on 40 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Frantz Coby

  • What is Examiner Coby's overall allowance rate?
    86% of 523 decided applications were allowed. This is the pooled rate across all art units and reflects the historical record only.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Coby has a record spanning 4 art units in TC 2100.
  • Do allowance rates differ across the examiner's art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 78% to 90% across the examiner's art units. The 86% pooled figure is an aggregate and does not represent any single art unit's rate.
◈ 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 Frantz Coby 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: 523 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