LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/JOHN M HEFFINGTON
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner John M Heffington

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 455 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner John M Heffington has allowed 184 of 455 decided applications (40%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

40% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2172 · 51%AU 2177 · 27%AU 2145 · 42%AU 2179 · 25%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

John M Heffington maintains a public record across 4 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 455 decided applications, his allowance rate is 40%, with 184 allowed and 271 abandoned. The allowance rate ranges from 25% to 51% across his art units, reflecting variation in the disposition of applications within this technology center. This pooled figure aggregates his record across multiple art units and describes his historical record only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units, each of which may handle distinct subject matter or application types. The overall allowance rate—here, 40% of 455 decided applications—is a historical summary. The range (25% to 51%) shows that outcomes vary by individual art unit. Neither the pooled rate nor the range is a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Pooled statistics describe past patterns, not future results.

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 2172
226 APPS · 51% ALLOWANCE
51% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION116 / 110 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.6 moart unit avg 24.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY66.9 moart unit avg 44.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility46% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)72%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness37%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW69%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW34%+35 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 112 decided applications with an interview and 114 without.

ART UNIT 2177
128 APPS · 27% ALLOWANCE
27% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION35 / 93 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.2 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY56.9 moart unit avg 40.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility39% · art unit 40%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)92%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness50%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW32%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW16%+16 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 91 decided applications with an interview and 37 without.

ART UNIT 2145
93 APPS · 42% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

42% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION19 / 26 / 48allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.2 moart unit avg 26.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY57.5 moart unit avg 45.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility26% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)98%
§103 — Obviousness99% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness33%
ART UNIT 2179
56 APPS · 25% ALLOWANCE
25% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION14 / 42 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION31.5 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY50.6 moart unit avg 43.3 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW38%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW16%+22 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 24 decided applications with an interview and 32 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner John M Heffington

  • What is John M Heffington's overall allowance rate?
    40% of his 455 decided applications were allowed. This represents a historical record across all his art units in TC 2100 and is not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units has this examiner worked in?
    Four art units: 2145, 2172, 2177, and 2179, all within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across his art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 25% to 51% across his art units, indicating variation in outcomes by art unit. The 40% pooled rate is an aggregate of these different rates.
◈ 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 John M Heffington 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: 503 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