LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/JAMES F SUGENT
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner James F Sugent

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 137 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION APR 2017
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner James F Sugent has allowed 95 of 137 decided applications (69%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

69% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2175 · 64%AU 2116 · 76%AU 2129 · 75%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

James F Sugent maintains a public record of 137 disposed applications across three art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of these decided cases, 95 were allowed and 42 were abandoned, yielding an overall allowance rate of 69%. This rate is calculated from the pool of all decided applications across the three art units. The allowance rate varies across individual art units, ranging from 64% to 76%. The breadth of the record—spanning multiple art units—reflects examination activity across distinct areas within TC 2100.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates disposal statistics across multiple art units, producing an overall allowance rate that describes past decisions in the aggregate. The 69% figure represents historical outcomes across all three art units combined and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The range (64% to 76%) shows variation among individual art units but does not identify which art unit produced which rate. Pooled data describes the examiner's overall practice; per-art-unit records are available separately for more granular analysis.

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 2175
75 APPS · 64% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

64% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION48 / 27 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.2 moart unit avg 22.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.3 moart unit avg 37.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility39% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)73%
§103 — Obviousness93% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness39%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW73%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW60%+13 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 22 decided applications with an interview and 53 without.

ART UNIT 2116
50 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines control or regulating systems.

76% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 78%
DISPOSITION38 / 12 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29.7 moart unit avg 24.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.4 moart unit avg 37.7 mo
ART UNIT 2129
12 APPS · 75% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

75% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION9 / 3 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.2 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.7 moart unit avg 42.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility67% · art unit 63%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness83% · art unit 75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness42%

Based on 12 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner James F Sugent

  • What is James F Sugent's overall allowance rate?
    The overall allowance rate is 69%, calculated from 95 allowed applications and 42 abandoned applications among 137 total disposed applications across all art units.
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    This pooled record spans three art units (2116, 2129, 2175) within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Across the three art units, allowance rates range from 64% to 76%. Individual art-unit records are available separately.
  • What does the 69% allowance rate mean for my application?
    The 69% figure describes past decisions in aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Each application is examined independently on its merits.
◈ 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 James F Sugent 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: 137 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