Examiner George Giroux has allowed 416 of 638 decided applications (65%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
George Giroux has a public record spanning 4 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 638 disposed applications, his allowance rate is 65%. This rate reflects the proportion of decided cases (allowed and abandoned combined) in his pooled record. The allowance rate varies across his art units, ranging from 56% to 76%. The breadth of his record across multiple art units means the overall 65% figure aggregates different subject areas and examination patterns within TC 2100.
A pooled record aggregates data from multiple art units, creating an overall figure that describes past outcomes without predicting results on any individual application. The 65% allowance rate is a historical aggregate; it does not indicate the probability of allowance in a particular case. The range (56% to 76%) shows variation among the art units but does not identify which specific unit produced which rate. Pooled statistics describe the examiner's combined record and are not predictive tools.
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 →
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.
Primarily examines program control and execution.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 66 decided applications with an interview and 174 without.
Primarily examines machine learning, and neural-network / biological-model computing.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 98 decided applications with an interview and 83 without.
Primarily examines data-processing methods for specific functions, and processing data by its order or content.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 46 decided applications with an interview and 64 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 62 decided applications with an interview and 45 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner George Giroux 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: 677 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