LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/KYLE ALLMAN THOMPSON
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Kyle Allman Thompson

TECH CENTER 2100 · 1 ART UNIT · 7 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 1 ART UNIT

Examiner Kyle Allman Thompson has allowed 6 of 7 decided applications (86%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

86% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Kyle Allman Thompson has an overall allowance rate of 86% across 7 decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications, spanning 1 art unit in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). These are pooled figures from the public USPTO record, not predictions about any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This page pools Examiner Kyle Allman Thompson's record across 1 art unit into one overall allowance rate — total allowed divided by total decided (allowed plus abandoned) applications, with pending excluded. Aggregate figures describe the past public record and are not predictions about any specific application. This is general information about the data, not legal advice.

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 2125
35 APPS · 86% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

86% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 75%
DISPOSITION6 / 1 / 28allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION36.5 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.2 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility84% · art unit 50%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness35%

Based on 35 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kyle Allman Thompson

  • What is Examiner Kyle Allman Thompson's overall allowance rate?
    86% across 7 decided applications in public USPTO data, pooled over 1 art unit.
  • How many art units does Examiner Kyle Allman Thompson examine in?
    1 art unit within Technology Center 2100, based on the public record.
  • Does Examiner Kyle Allman Thompson's allowance rate vary by art unit?
    The per-art-unit figures are shown in the breakdown on this page.
◈ 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 Kyle Allman Thompson 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: 35 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