LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/KELVIN BOOKER
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Kelvin Booker

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 602 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 Kelvin Booker has allowed 491 of 602 decided applications (82%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

82% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2119 · 87%AU 2127 · 75%AU 2122 · 70%AU 2121 · 62%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Patent Examiner Kelvin Booker maintains a public record of 622 total applications across four art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 602 disposed applications, 491 were allowed, resulting in an 82% allowance rate. The examiner's record spans multiple art units (2119, 2121, 2122, 2127), with allowance rates ranging from 70% to 87% across these units. This pooled figure represents the aggregate of decided applications—allowed and abandoned combined—and reflects the examiner's historical disposition across TC 2100 subject matter.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates dispositions across multiple art units into a single historical summary. The overall allowance rate describes past decisions on decided applications and is not a prediction of outcome for any specific application. Allowance rates vary by art unit; the range shown reflects this variation. Pooled statistics describe what has occurred, not what will occur in future prosecution.

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 2119
369 APPS · 87% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines electric power networks, supply, and distribution.

87% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 83%
DISPOSITION304 / 45 / 20allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.2 moart unit avg 21.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.5 moart unit avg 31.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility29% · art unit 33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)64%
§103 — Obviousness68% · art unit 74%
§112 — Written description & definiteness52%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW89%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW86%+3 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 122 decided applications with an interview and 227 without.

ART UNIT 2127
220 APPS · 75% ALLOWANCE

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

75% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION165 / 55 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.5 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.7 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility25% · art unit 51%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)94%
§103 — Obviousness42% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness26%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW78%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW74%+4 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 59 decided applications with an interview and 161 without.

ART UNIT 2122
20 APPS · 70% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

70% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION14 / 6 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.7 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.4 moart unit avg 39.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility18% · art unit 55%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)53%
§103 — Obviousness71% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness18%

Based on 20 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2121
13 APPS · 62% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

62% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION8 / 5 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29.9 moart unit avg 27 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.4 moart unit avg 39.9 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kelvin Booker

  • What is Examiner Booker's overall allowance rate?
    Across 602 disposed applications in TC 2100, the allowance rate is 82%.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The record spans four art units: 2119, 2121, 2122, and 2127.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 70% to 87% across these art units, reflecting variation by subject matter within TC 2100.
  • Is this allowance rate a prediction for my application?
    No. This is a historical aggregate of past dispositions and is not a prediction of outcome for any specific 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 Kelvin Booker 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: 622 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