Examiner Keith A Nielsen has allowed 26 of 46 decided applications (57%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Keith A Nielsen maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 46 disposed applications, he allowed 26 and abandoned 20, yielding an allowance rate of 57%. The record spans a single art unit (2183). This allowance rate describes the examiner's historical decisions on applications that have been decided; it is a summary of past outcomes and does not characterize or predict any individual application's result.
This pooled record aggregates decisions across art units assigned to the examiner. The allowance rate and disposal count reflect cumulative history rather than subject-matter-specific performance. Figures describe the examiner's past decided applications and establish a factual baseline of historical disposition patterns. Such aggregate data does not forecast the outcome of any pending or future application.
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 →
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.
Primarily examines program control and execution.
Based on 46 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Keith A Nielsen 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: 46 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