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

Examiner Gary J Portka

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 918 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2022
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Gary J Portka has allowed 804 of 918 decided applications (88%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

88% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2138 · 93%AU 2188 · 84%AU 2187 · 82%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Gary J Portka has a disposed record of 918 applications across three art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of those decided applications, 804 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 88%. This rate reflects the examiner's pooled activity across art units 2138, 2187, and 2188. The allowance rate varies across these art units, ranging from 82% to 93%. The remaining 114 disposed applications were abandoned.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record pools outcomes across multiple art units, masking unit-specific variation. The 88% figure describes historical disposal outcomes, not a prediction about any new application. Allowance rates vary by art unit (82% to 93%), and an applicant's experience may differ from the pooled average. The aggregate is useful for understanding overall examiner activity; per-unit rates are available separately and may provide more specific context.

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 2138
428 APPS · 93% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

93% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 82%
DISPOSITION397 / 31 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17 moart unit avg 19.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY25.4 moart unit avg 32.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility5% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)79%
§103 — Obviousness70% · art unit 71%
§112 — Written description & definiteness46%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW99%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW91%+8 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 105 decided applications with an interview and 323 without.

ART UNIT 2188
336 APPS · 84% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

84% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION281 / 55 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.2 moart unit avg 26.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility7% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)54%
§103 — Obviousness82% · art unit 74%
§112 — Written description & definiteness50%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW94%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW82%+12 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 48 decided applications with an interview and 288 without.

ART UNIT 2187
154 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

82% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION126 / 28 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.8 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY42.3 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility10% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)53%
§103 — Obviousness65% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness48%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW91%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW79%+12 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 33 decided applications with an interview and 121 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Gary J Portka

  • What is Gary J Portka's allowance rate?
    88% of his 918 decided applications were allowed, across all three art units combined.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Three art units (2138, 2187, 2188) within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Across the art units, allowance rates range from 82% to 93%. Per-unit breakdowns are available in the detailed section.
  • Is this rate a prediction for my application?
    No. This is a summary of past decisions. It is not a prediction of the outcome of 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 Gary J Portka 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: 918 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