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

Examiner Gary W Cygiel

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 619 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 Gary W Cygiel has allowed 466 of 619 decided applications (75%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

75% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2137 · 85%AU 2187 · 58%AU 2188 · 49%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Gary W Cygiel maintains a pooled allowance rate of 75% across 619 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His public record spans 3 art units: 2137, 2187, and 2188. The allowance rate ranges from 49% to 85% across these art units, reflecting variation in outcomes within the examiner's portfolio. Of 650 total applications, 466 were allowed and 153 were abandoned. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's work across all assigned art units and describes the historical record only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines allowance rates from multiple art units into a single aggregate figure. This aggregate describes past dispositions and is not a prediction of outcomes in any specific application. Individual art units may show different allowance rates; the range reported here (49% to 85%) reflects that variation. Pooled statistics are useful for understanding overall patterns but do not predict the result in any particular case.

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 2137
454 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE

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

85% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 68%
DISPOSITION358 / 65 / 31allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.2 moart unit avg 25.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.9 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility17% · art unit 25%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)77%
§103 — Obviousness66% · art unit 85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness51%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW88%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW83%+5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 169 decided applications with an interview and 254 without.

ART UNIT 2187
135 APPS · 58% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

58% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION78 / 57 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.8 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY58.1 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility25% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)51%
§103 — Obviousness69% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness49%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW77%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW50%+27 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 39 decided applications with an interview and 96 without.

ART UNIT 2188
61 APPS · 49% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

49% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION30 / 31 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.2 moart unit avg 26.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY42.9 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW59%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW44%+15 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 22 decided applications with an interview and 39 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Gary W Cygiel

  • What is Gary W Cygiel's overall allowance rate?
    75% across 619 disposed applications, pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    3 art units: 2137, 2187, and 2188.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 49% to 85% across the examiner's art units, reflecting differences in disposition patterns by art unit.
◈ 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 W Cygiel 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: 650 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