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

Examiner Kyle R Stork

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 1,061 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Kyle R Stork has allowed 662 of 1,061 decided applications (62%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

62% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2178 · 56%AU 2144 · 64%AU 2128 · 74%AU 2143 · 78%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Kyle R Stork maintains a pooled allowance rate of 62% across 1,061 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His public record spans 4 art units: 2128, 2143, 2144, and 2178. The allowance rate ranges from 56% to 78% across these art units, reflecting variation in outcomes within the examiner's portfolio. Of 1,128 total applications on record, 662 were allowed and 399 were abandoned. This pooled figure represents a snapshot of historical dispositions and does not predict outcomes in any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units within TC 2100. An allowance rate derived from disposed applications—allowed plus abandoned cases—reflects past outcomes across the examiner's entire portfolio. The range (56% to 78%) indicates that allowance rates vary among individual art units. Pooled figures describe historical performance and are correlational data; they are not predictions of any specific application's outcome or indicators of examiner intent.

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 2178
475 APPS · 56% ALLOWANCE
56% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 54%
DISPOSITION267 / 208 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION33.8 moart unit avg 25.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY61.2 moart unit avg 41.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility63% · art unit 36%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)34%
§103 — Obviousness91% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness17%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW78%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW45%+33 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 165 decided applications with an interview and 310 without.

ART UNIT 2144
416 APPS · 64% ALLOWANCE
64% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION268 / 148 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.1 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility42% · art unit 45%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)81%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 92%
§112 — Written description & definiteness30%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW77%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW44%+33 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 256 decided applications with an interview and 160 without.

ART UNIT 2128
205 APPS · 74% ALLOWANCE

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

74% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION102 / 36 / 67allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.4 moart unit avg 30 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.8 moart unit avg 46.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility64% · art unit 65%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)80%
§103 — Obviousness89% · art unit 84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness36%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW79%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW67%+12 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 81 decided applications with an interview and 57 without.

ART UNIT 2143
32 APPS · 78% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
78% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 52%
DISPOSITION25 / 7 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION14.3 moart unit avg 29.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY26.9 moart unit avg 45.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)90%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 94%
§112 — Written description & definiteness27%

Based on 32 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Kyle R Stork

  • What is Kyle R Stork's overall allowance rate?
    62%, calculated from 662 allowed applications among 1,061 disposed applications across all art units in his pooled record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    4 art units (2128, 2143, 2144, 2178) within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 56% to 78% across the examiner's art units, reflecting variation in outcomes within his portfolio.
  • Does this pooled rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The pooled rate is a historical aggregate and does not predict any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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 R Stork 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: 1,128 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