Examiner Nathan L Laughlin has allowed 570 of 840 decided applications (68%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Nathan L Laughlin maintains a pooled allowance rate of 68% across 840 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His record spans 7 art units. The allowance rate ranges from 55% to 80% across these art units, reflecting variation in the examiner's decisions within the technology center. This pooled figure represents applications that have been decided—either allowed or abandoned—and does not include pending applications.
A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, producing an overall allowance rate that reflects the examiner's historical record in the aggregate. The 68% figure describes past decisions on closed applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Allowance rates vary by art unit; the range shown reflects this variation but does not identify which art units produced which rates. Pooled data provides a broad context for understanding an examiner's overall record.
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 →
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.
Primarily examines electric power networks, supply, and distribution.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 106 decided applications with an interview and 154 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 48 decided applications with an interview and 156 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 28 decided applications with an interview and 93 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 24 decided applications with an interview and 79 without.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 22 decided applications with an interview and 74 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Based on 36 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Nathan L Laughlin 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: 895 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