LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/NICHOLAS GEORGE KLICOS
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Nicholas George Klicos

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 391 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 Nicholas George Klicos has allowed 230 of 391 decided applications (59%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

59% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2142 · 46%AU 2118 · 85%AU 2145 · 69%AU 2144 · 81%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Nicholas George Klicos has a pooled allowance rate of 59% across 391 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His public record spans four art units: 2118, 2142, 2144, and 2145. Among these art units, allowance rates range from 46% to 85%, reflecting variation in the composition and outcomes of applications across different subject areas within TC 2100. Of 434 total applications in his record, 230 were allowed and 161 were abandoned.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This profile aggregates Mr. Klicos's record across multiple art units within TC 2100. The pooled allowance rate of 59% describes historical outcomes on decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Variation across art units (46% to 85%) reflects different application volumes and mixes within each unit. Pooled figures describe past record; individual applications are examined on their merits.

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 2142
237 APPS · 46% ALLOWANCE

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

46% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 45%
DISPOSITION109 / 128 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21 moart unit avg 30.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.9 moart unit avg 48.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility57% · art unit 57%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)80%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness74%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW58%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW25%+33 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 152 decided applications with an interview and 85 without.

ART UNIT 2118
123 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE
85% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION68 / 12 / 43allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.1 moart unit avg 22.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.3 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility44% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)89%
§103 — Obviousness80% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness68%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW86%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW84%+2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 35 decided applications with an interview and 45 without.

ART UNIT 2145
58 APPS · 69% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

69% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION40 / 18 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION14 moart unit avg 26.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.4 moart unit avg 45.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility25% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness69%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW74%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW56%+18 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 42 decided applications with an interview and 16 without.

ART UNIT 2144
16 APPS · 81% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
81% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION13 / 3 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.3 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.9 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility13% · art unit 45%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)87%
§103 — Obviousness87% · art unit 92%
§112 — Written description & definiteness67%

Based on 16 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Nicholas George Klicos

  • What is Nicholas George Klicos's overall allowance rate?
    59% across 391 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Four art units: 2118, 2142, 2144, and 2145, all within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates range from 46% to 85% across the four art units, reflecting variation in application mix and outcomes within TC 2100.
  • Does this pooled record predict my application's outcome?
    No. These figures describe past outcomes on decided applications and are not predictions of 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 Nicholas George Klicos 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: 434 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