LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/PAUL M KNIGHT
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Paul M Knight

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 316 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 Paul M Knight has allowed 208 of 316 decided applications (66%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

66% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2139 · 63%AU 2148 · 80%AU 2124 · 70%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Paul M Knight has a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) spanning three art units. Across 316 disposed applications, 208 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 66%. The examiner's allowance rate ranges from 63% to 80% across the art units with substantial records, reflecting variation in outcomes by art unit. This pooled figure aggregates results across these three art units and describes the historical record only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines data from multiple art units into a single aggregate figure. The overall allowance rate of 66% reflects all decided applications across the three art units where this examiner has worked. This aggregate is a historical description and is not a prediction of the outcome of any specific application. Individual art units may show different allowance rates; those figures are published separately.

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 2139
240 APPS · 63% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

63% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION152 / 88 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.5 moart unit avg 24 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.3 moart unit avg 37.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility29% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)88%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 80%
§112 — Written description & definiteness88%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW66%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW58%+8 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 156 decided applications with an interview and 84 without.

ART UNIT 2148
71 APPS · 80% ALLOWANCE

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

80% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION24 / 6 / 41allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION33.1 moart unit avg 29.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY50.4 moart unit avg 42.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility64% · art unit 70%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)94%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness94%
ART UNIT 2124
46 APPS · 70% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

70% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 64%
DISPOSITION32 / 14 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.4 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY42.7 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility45% · art unit 61%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)95%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness95%

Based on 46 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Paul M Knight

  • What is Paul M Knight's overall allowance rate?
    Across 316 disposed applications, the allowance rate is 66%. This figure pools all decided cases across three art units and is a historical record only, not a prediction.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The public record covers three art units in TC 2100: art units 2124, 2139, and 2148.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 63% to 80% across the art units with substantial records. Detailed allowance rates for each individual art unit are published separately.
◈ 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 Paul M Knight 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: 357 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