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

Examiner James J Debrow

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 614 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 James J Debrow has allowed 430 of 614 decided applications (70%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

70% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2144 · 75%AU 2176 · 45%AU 2174 · 93%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

James J Debrow has a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 614 disposed applications, his allowance rate is 70%, representing 430 allowed and 184 abandoned applications. The allowance rate across the art units ranges from 45% to 93%, reflecting variation in outcomes across the different art units within TC 2100. This pooled figure aggregates his record across all three art units and describes decisions made to date.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates an examiner's performance across multiple art units. The overall allowance rate of 70% describes past dispositions across all three art units combined and does not predict outcomes in any specific application. The range of 45% to 93% shows that individual art units within TC 2100 have recorded different allowance rates. The pooled rate is a historical aggregate and is not a forecast for future applications.

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 2144
309 APPS · 75% ALLOWANCE
75% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION232 / 77 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.3 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.9 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility28% · art unit 45%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)82%
§103 — Obviousness83% · art unit 92%
§112 — Written description & definiteness13%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW83%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW68%+15 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 150 decided applications with an interview and 159 without.

ART UNIT 2176
178 APPS · 45% ALLOWANCE

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

45% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 59%
DISPOSITION80 / 98 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.2 moart unit avg 23.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY50.4 moart unit avg 40.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility34% · art unit 41%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)56%
§103 — Obviousness93% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness19%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW65%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW30%+35 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 77 decided applications with an interview and 101 without.

ART UNIT 2174
163 APPS · 93% ALLOWANCE
93% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION118 / 9 / 36allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.9 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY28.9 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility24% · art unit 33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)75%
§103 — Obviousness68% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness13%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW100%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW86%+14 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 64 decided applications with an interview and 63 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner James J Debrow

  • What is James J Debrow's overall allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 70% across 614 disposed applications pooled from all 3 art units. This figure includes 430 allowed and 184 abandoned applications.
  • How many art units does Debrow cover?
    Debrow has a record in 3 art units (2144, 2174, 2176) within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 45% to 93% across the individual art units. This range reflects variation among the separate art units and does not indicate performance on any particular 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 James J Debrow 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