LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/JEREMY L STANLEY
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Jeremy L Stanley

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 287 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 Jeremy L Stanley has allowed 142 of 287 decided applications (49%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

49% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2179 · 39%AU 2127 · 72%AU 2177 · 76%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Jeremy L Stanley has a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 287 disposed applications, 142 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 49%. The allowance rate ranges from 39% to 72% across these art units, reflecting variation in the record within TC 2100. The examiner has handled 327 total applications, of which 145 were abandoned. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's work across multiple art units and describes past dispositions, not outcomes in any specific case.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record is pooled across multiple art units within TC 2100 and represents historical disposal data. An aggregate allowance rate describes what occurred across all art units combined and is not predictive of any individual application's outcome. The range (39% to 72%) shows that allowance rates differ among the examiner's art units. Pooled figures are useful context for understanding an examiner's overall record but do not indicate how any particular application will be examined or decided.

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 2179
198 APPS · 39% ALLOWANCE
39% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION77 / 121 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.4 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.8 moart unit avg 43.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility52% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)77%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness77%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW56%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW8%+48 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 127 decided applications with an interview and 71 without.

ART UNIT 2127
112 APPS · 72% ALLOWANCE

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

72% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION52 / 20 / 40allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.8 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.1 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility40% · art unit 51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)60%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness63%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW86%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW50%+36 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 44 decided applications with an interview and 28 without.

ART UNIT 2177
17 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
76% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION13 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION12.1 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.2 moart unit avg 40.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility40% · art unit 40%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)80%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness73%

Based on 17 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Jeremy L Stanley

  • What is Jeremy L Stanley's overall allowance rate?
    49% of 287 disposed applications were allowed.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The record spans 3 art units within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 39% to 72% across the examiner's art units, indicating variation within the pooled record.
  • What does this pooled record tell me about my application?
    This pooled record describes past dispositions across multiple art units and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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 Jeremy L Stanley 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: 327 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