LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/KENNETH R COULTER
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Kenneth R Coulter

TECH CENTER 2100 · 2 ART UNITS · 163 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION OCT 2008
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
67%vs 55% weighted peer average+12 pts

Examiner Kenneth R Coulter has allowed 110 of 163 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

allowed110abandoned53pending0· pending excluded from the rate
The weighted peer average (55%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 14, 2026
AU 2141 · 66%AU 2154 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Kenneth R Coulter maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) across 2 art units. His pooled allowance rate stands at 67% of decided applications across hundreds of decided applications. This figure aggregates outcomes from art units 2141 and 2154 and reflects the proportion of applications that were allowed among all applications that were either allowed or abandoned. The allowance rate is based on the examiner's cumulative decided record and does not constitute a prediction for any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This profile reports pooled statistics aggregating Kenneth R Coulter's record across multiple art units within TC 2100. A pooled allowance rate describes the examiner's historical outcomes across decided applications and reflects correlations in past decisions, not causal factors or predictions. The 67% figure applies to the aggregate record only and does not apply uniformly to individual art units or forecast any particular application's outcome. Applicants may review art-unit-specific records separately.

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 2141
157 APPS · 66% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

66% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION104 / 53 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION31.9 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48.1 moart unit avg 47.1 mo
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW58%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW69%-11 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 40 decided applications with an interview and 117 without.

ART UNIT 2154
6 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION6 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION8 moart unit avg 27.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY14.8 moart unit avg 41.9 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kenneth R Coulter

  • What is Kenneth R Coulter's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 67% of decided applications across hundreds of decided applications in TC 2100. This represents the share of applications allowed among all decided (allowed or abandoned) applications, aggregated across all art units in his record.
  • How many art units does Kenneth R Coulter work in?
    Kenneth R Coulter is assigned to 2 art units (2141 and 2154) within Technology Center 2100. The pooled allowance rate reported here combines outcomes from both art units.
  • Does the 67% allowance rate apply to my application?
    The 67% figure describes the examiner's historical pooled record and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual applications are examined on their merits. Art-unit-specific statistics are available in a separate section of this record.
  • What technology does this examiner work on?
    Kenneth R Coulter examines applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His record covers 2 art units within this technology center.
◈ HOW LYNCH LLP CAN HELP

Where to go next.

Lynch LLP represents applicants in patent prosecution before the USPTO. These are general resources about the firm's services — not advice about this examiner or any specific application.

Patent prosecution at Lynch LLPApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.Appeals and PTAB practiceAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.IP portfolio strategyHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Scheduling time with an attorneyFree and paid consultation options across the firm's attorneys.
◈ 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 Kenneth R Coulter 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 July 14, 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: 163 applications.

Rejection rates. Each §-rate is the share of this examiner's applications that drew at least one office-action rejection in which that statutory ground appears; applications with no rejection on record are excluded, and because grounds can co-occur the four do not sum to 100%. The art-unit figure beside each is the unweighted mean of the per-examiner rates across the art unit, published for §101 and §103 only. Beside the overall allowance rate we show a benchmark: for a single-art-unit examiner it is exactly that art unit's average, labeled “art-unit average”; for an examiner spanning several art units it is the “weighted peer average” — the per-art-unit averages, weighted by this examiner's application count in each — labeled distinctly because it is a blended figure, not any single art unit's average. Both are built from the same per-art-unit averages the panels show.

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