LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/KEVIN L. YOUNG
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Kevin L. Young

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 183 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION APR 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Kevin L. Young has allowed 89 of 183 decided applications (49%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

49% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2165 · 50%AU 2194 · 56%AU 2145 · 31%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Kevin L. Young maintains a public record across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 183 disposed applications, the examiner's allowance rate is 49%. This figure represents the percentage of decided applications—those allowed or abandoned—and excludes pending matters. The record spans art units 2145, 2165, and 2194, aggregating dispositions across multiple subject areas within the technology center.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines data from multiple art units into a single aggregate. The allowance rate and disposed-application count describe the examiner's historical record across all those units combined. These figures reflect past dispositions and are not predictions about any specific application. Individual art-unit data, where available separately, may show variation within the overall pool.

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 2165
161 APPS · 50% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

50% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION80 / 81 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.7 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY46.5 moart unit avg 39.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility61% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)49%
§103 — Obviousness93% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness24%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW78%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW29%+49 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 68 decided applications with an interview and 93 without.

ART UNIT 2194
19 APPS · 56% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines program control and execution.

56% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 69%
DISPOSITION5 / 4 / 10allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION33 moart unit avg 28 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.5 moart unit avg 43.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility67% · art unit 52%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)78%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness61%

Based on 19 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2145
13 APPS · 31% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

31% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION4 / 9 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.4 moart unit avg 26.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY49.1 moart unit avg 45.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility42% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)92%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness67%

Based on 13 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kevin L. Young

  • What is Kevin L. Young's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 49%, calculated over 183 disposed applications (allowed and abandoned decisions combined, pending applications excluded).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The record spans three art units: 2145, 2165, and 2194, all within TC 2100.
  • What does the pooled record mean?
    The figures aggregate all dispositions across the three art units into a single historical profile. The allowance rate is not a prediction of outcome in any individual application.
  • How many applications are included?
    The record covers 193 total applications, of which 183 have been disposed (89 allowed, 94 abandoned). Ten applications remain pending.
◈ 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. Young 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: 193 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