Examiner Hal W Schnee has allowed 657 of 804 decided applications (82%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Examiner Hal W Schnee maintains a public record across 5 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 804 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 82%, measured as allowed applications (657) against the total of allowed and abandoned applications (804 decided). The allowance rate across individual art units ranges from 69% to 89%. This pooled figure reflects the examiner's aggregate record and encompasses applications spanning multiple specialized areas within TC 2100.
A pooled record aggregates allowance rates across multiple art units, producing a single overall percentage. This aggregate describes past outcomes across decided applications and does not function as a prediction for any individual pending application. Art units within TC 2100 may exhibit different allowance rates; the range shown reflects that variation. Pooled figures are historical summaries, not forecasts.
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 input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 141 decided applications with an interview and 92 without.
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 53 decided applications with an interview and 160 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 75 decided applications with an interview and 81 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 66 decided applications with an interview and 57 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 26 decided applications with an interview and 53 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Hal W Schnee 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: 831 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