LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/NATHAN K SHREWSBURY
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Nathan K Shrewsbury

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 359 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUL 2024
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Nathan K Shrewsbury has allowed 276 of 359 decided applications (77%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

77% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2175 · 77%AU 2172 · 100%AU 2177 · 0%AU 2145 · 50%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Nathan K Shrewsbury maintains a public record across four art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 359 disposed applications, he allowed 276 and abandoned 83, yielding an allowance rate of 77%. The allowance rate ranges from 77% to 100% across his art units. This pooled figure reflects aggregate outcomes across the technology center's subject matter and does not predict the disposition of any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units into a single allowance rate. This aggregate describes what occurred in the examiner's past decisions and reflects the breadth of subject matter handled. The range (77% to 100%) shows variation among individual art units, but the pooled rate is a historical summary only—not a forecast of any specific application's outcome.

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 2175
296 APPS · 77% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

77% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION229 / 67 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.7 moart unit avg 22.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.9 moart unit avg 37.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility31% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)51%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness48%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW88%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW68%+20 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 135 decided applications with an interview and 161 without.

ART UNIT 2172
42 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION42 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.8 moart unit avg 24.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.8 moart unit avg 44.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility53% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)55%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness50%

Based on 42 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2177
11 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION0 / 11 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION32.1 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.4 moart unit avg 40.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility43% · art unit 40%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)29%
§103 — Obviousness86% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness57%

Based on 11 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2145
10 APPS · 50% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

50% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION5 / 5 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.7 moart unit avg 26.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.1 moart unit avg 45.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)50%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness50%

Based on 10 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Nathan K Shrewsbury

  • What is Nathan K Shrewsbury's overall allowance rate?
    77% over 359 disposed applications (276 allowed, 83 abandoned) in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Four art units: 2145, 2172, 2175, and 2177, all within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 77% to 100% across the examiner's art units.
  • Does the pooled allowance rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The pooled rate describes past decisions only and is not a prediction for 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 Nathan K Shrewsbury 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: 359 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