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

Examiner Nicholas Hasty

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 352 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Nicholas Hasty has allowed 185 of 352 decided applications (53%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

53% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2178 · 49%AU 2141 · 68%AU 2173 · 73%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Nicholas Hasty maintains a public record across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 352 disposed applications, 185 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 53%. The examiner's allowance rates range from 49% to 68% across the art units in the record. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes across distinct subject-matter areas and does not reflect performance in any single art unit.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines data from multiple art units, each with potentially different technologies and applicant populations. The aggregate allowance rate describes past outcomes across all units together and does not constitute a prediction for any specific application. The range shown reflects variation among the individual art units; any particular application may fall within or outside that historical distribution.

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
284 APPS · 49% ALLOWANCE
49% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 54%
DISPOSITION138 / 146 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.6 moart unit avg 25.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY56.5 moart unit avg 41.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility33% · art unit 36%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)48%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness6%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW72%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW33%+39 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 114 decided applications with an interview and 170 without.

ART UNIT 2141
92 APPS · 68% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

68% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION39 / 18 / 35allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41 moart unit avg 47.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility47% · art unit 49%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)27%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness27%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW71%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW65%+6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 31 decided applications with an interview and 26 without.

ART UNIT 2173
11 APPS · 73% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
73% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION8 / 3 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION14.5 moart unit avg 25.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.1 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility36% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)27%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness36%

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

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Nicholas Hasty

  • What is Nicholas Hasty's overall allowance rate?
    53%, based on 185 allowed applications out of 352 disposed applications in the public record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Three art units: 2141, 2173, and 2178, all within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the art units?
    Allowance rates range from 49% to 68% across the examiner's art units, reflecting variation in outcomes by subject area.
  • What does the pooled allowance rate mean for my application?
    The pooled figure describes the examiner's historical record across multiple art units. It is not a prediction of outcome 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 Nicholas Hasty 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: 387 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