LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/KEVIN L ELLIS
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Kevin L Ellis

TECH CENTER 2100 · 5 ART UNITS · 294 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JAN 2011
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 5 ART UNITS
92%vs 67% weighted peer average+25 pts

Examiner Kevin L Ellis has allowed 271 of 294 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

allowed271abandoned23pending0· pending excluded from the rate
The weighted peer average (67%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (5 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 14, 2026
AU 2188 · 94%AU 2187 · 0%AU 2117 · 0%AU 2185 · 100%AU 2186 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Kevin L Ellis maintains an allowance rate of 92% across hundreds of decided applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His public record spans five art units within TC 2100. The allowance rate reflects the share of his decided applications—those allowed and abandoned—pooled across all art units under his examination. This figure describes his historical record and does not constitute a prediction for any specific pending application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This examiner's record aggregates decisions across multiple art units in TC 2100. The pooled allowance rate represents past outcomes across different subject areas and application types within the technology center. Aggregate statistics describe historical performance and are correlational data only—not predictive of outcomes in individual cases. Each application's prosecution depends on its specific claims, prior art, and procedural posture.

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 2188
287 APPS · 94% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

94% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION269 / 18 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.7 moart unit avg 26.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY31.8 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
ART UNIT 2187
3 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION0 / 3 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.5 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY58.8 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
REJECTION RATE = SHARE OF THIS EXAMINER'S APPLICATIONS THAT DREW ≥1 OFFICE-ACTION REJECTION IN WHICH THE GROUND APPEARS

Grounds can co-occur, so the four don't sum to 100%. The art-unit figure is the unweighted mean across examiners in the art unit; §102 and §112 carry no art-unit benchmark.

§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0%art unit 40%40 pts
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%no art-unit benchmark
§103 — Obviousness100%art unit 77%+23 pts
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%no art-unit benchmark

Based on 3 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2117
2 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines control or regulating systems.

0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 74%
DISPOSITION0 / 2 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION13 moart unit avg 20.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36 moart unit avg 33.2 mo
ART UNIT 2185
1 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION1 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION3.3 moart unit avg 21.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY10.7 moart unit avg 36.3 mo
ART UNIT 2186
1 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION1 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION12.7 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY20.3 moart unit avg 35 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kevin L Ellis

  • What is Kevin L Ellis's overall allowance rate?
    His allowance rate is 92%, calculated as a percentage of decided applications (allowed and abandoned) across all art units in his pooled record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Kevin L Ellis has a public record spanning five art units (2117, 2185, 2186, 2187, 2188) within Technology Center 2100.
  • What does this pooled record cover?
    This record pools all decided applications across the five art units in TC 2100 and presents aggregate figures. Separate records for each individual art unit are available elsewhere on this page.
  • Does this allowance rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. This figure describes past decisions across hundreds of applications. It is not a prediction for any specific pending application, which depends on its individual claims, prior art, and procedural history.
◈ 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.

How the firm prosecutes patentsApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.Work before the Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.Planning a patent portfolio over timeHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.The firm's consultation optionsFree 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 Kevin L Ellis 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: 294 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