LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/JEFFREY A GAFFIN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Jeffrey A Gaffin

TECH CENTER 2100 · 5 ART UNITS · 60 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2018
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 5 ART UNITS

Examiner Jeffrey A Gaffin has allowed 13 of 60 decided applications (22%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

22% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2165 · 29%AU 2172 · 0%AU 2117 · 14%AU 2129 · 33%AU 2182 · 50%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Jeffrey A Gaffin maintains a public record across five art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 60 disposed applications, his pooled allowance rate is 22%, reflecting 13 allowed and 47 abandoned applications. This rate is below the art-unit range of 29% to 29%. The breadth of his assignment across five art units means his overall statistics represent an aggregation of work spanning multiple areas within the technology center rather than a single specialized focus.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled, cross-art-unit record aggregates an examiner's decisions across multiple art units into a single overall allowance rate. This aggregate describes the examiner's historical pattern of decisions on decided applications and reflects the composition and mix of cases across those units. The aggregate figures do not predict the outcome of any specific application, nor do they isolate performance in any single art unit.

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 2165
35 APPS · 29% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

29% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION10 / 25 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.9 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY17.4 moart unit avg 39.6 mo
ART UNIT 2172
13 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION0 / 13 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.3 moart unit avg 24.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY62.6 moart unit avg 44.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility50% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)75%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness17%

Based on 13 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2117
7 APPS · 14% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines control or regulating systems.

14% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 74%
DISPOSITION1 / 6 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.4 moart unit avg 20.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY27.6 moart unit avg 33.2 mo
ART UNIT 2129
3 APPS · 33% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

33% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION1 / 2 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.3 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.7 moart unit avg 42.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0% · art unit 63%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness0% · art unit 75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%

Based on 3 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2182
2 APPS · 50% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines data-processing methods for specific functions, and processing data by its order or content.

50% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION1 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION13.1 moart unit avg 24.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY24.8 moart unit avg 37.3 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Jeffrey A Gaffin

  • What is Jeffrey A Gaffin's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 22%, based on 60 disposed applications (13 allowed, 47 abandoned). This represents his historical record across all assigned art units and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
  • How many art units has this examiner worked in?
    The public record spans five art units within TC 2100: 2117, 2129, 2165, 2172, and 2182. The pooled allowance rate aggregates decisions across all five.
  • What does the pooled allowance rate mean?
    The pooled rate reflects the proportion of decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) that were allowed, across all art units combined. It describes past decisions and is not applicable to predicting outcomes in any specific art unit or application.
  • How does this examiner's rate compare to the art units?
    The pooled allowance rate of 22% falls below the art-unit range of 29% to 29%. Comparisons to art-unit averages provide context for the examiner's historical record but do not predict any individual application's path.
◈ 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 Jeffrey A Gaffin 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: 60 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