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

Examiner Kevin Verbrugge

TECH CENTER 2100 · 6 ART UNITS · 1,202 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 6 ART UNITS

Examiner Kevin Verbrugge has allowed 1,108 of 1,202 decided applications (92%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

92% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2132 · 95%AU 2189 · 89%AU 2188 · 93%AU 2182 · 86%AU 2187 · 100%AU 2185 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Kevin Verbrugge maintains a public record across 6 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 1,202 decided applications, his allowance rate stands at 92%, meaning 1,108 applications were allowed and 94 abandoned. The allowance rate ranges from 86% to 95% across these art units, reflecting variation in outcomes by individual art unit. This pooled figure represents the examiner's aggregate history and does not predict outcomes in any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data from multiple art units into a single historical snapshot. The 92% allowance rate reflects past decisions across 1,202 closed applications and does not constitute a prediction for any pending or future application. Variation across individual art units (86% to 95%) indicates that outcomes differ by subject matter and art unit. Pooled statistics describe historical performance only.

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 2132
661 APPS · 95% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

95% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION610 / 34 / 17allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION14.9 moart unit avg 27.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY21.9 moart unit avg 41 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility10% · art unit 21%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)58%
§103 — Obviousness55% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness17%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW92%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW95%-3 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 79 decided applications with an interview and 565 without.

ART UNIT 2189
393 APPS · 89% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

89% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 77%
DISPOSITION349 / 44 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.2 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.4 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility22% · art unit 44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)38%
§103 — Obviousness51% · art unit 72%
§112 — Written description & definiteness30%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

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

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 22 decided applications with an interview and 371 without.

ART UNIT 2188
85 APPS · 93% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

93% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION79 / 6 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.6 moart unit avg 26.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.7 moart unit avg 39.7 mo
ART UNIT 2182
73 APPS · 86% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines data-processing methods for specific functions, and processing data by its order or content.

86% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION63 / 10 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.3 moart unit avg 24.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.4 moart unit avg 37.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility16% · art unit 31%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)19%
§103 — Obviousness72% · art unit 76%
§112 — Written description & definiteness28%
ART UNIT 2187
6 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION6 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION3.8 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY13.1 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
ART UNIT 2185
1 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION1 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION4.5 moart unit avg 21.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY8.1 moart unit avg 36.3 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kevin Verbrugge

  • What is Kevin Verbrugge's overall allowance rate?
    92% across 1,202 decided applications pooled from all 6 art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    6 art units: 2132, 2182, 2185, 2187, 2188, and 2189.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 86% to 95% across the examiner's art units.
  • Is the 92% rate a prediction for my application?
    No. It is a historical aggregate and does not predict the outcome of 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 Kevin Verbrugge 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: 1,219 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