LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/PIERRE MICHE BATAILLE
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Pierre Miche Bataille

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 1,652 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 Pierre Miche Bataille has allowed 1,534 of 1,652 decided applications (93%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

93% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2186 · 90%AU 2136 · 94%AU 2138 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Pierre Miche Bataille holds a pooled public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 1,652 decided applications, the examiner allowed 1,534 and abandoned 118, yielding a 93% allowance rate. Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 90% to 100%. This pooled figure represents outcomes across multiple art-unit records combined and does not constitute a prediction for any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data from multiple art units, masking variation among them. The overall allowance rate describes the examiner's past disposal record as a whole and is not predictive of any particular application's outcome. The range shows dispersion: some art units within the examiner's portfolio recorded higher or lower allowance rates than the 93% aggregate. Pooled statistics are historical summaries, not forecasts.

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 2186
746 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

90% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION672 / 74 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.8 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.9 moart unit avg 35 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility15% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)59%
§103 — Obviousness54% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness24%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW95%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW89%+6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 109 decided applications with an interview and 637 without.

ART UNIT 2136
692 APPS · 94% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer.

94% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 60%
DISPOSITION649 / 43 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION15.8 moart unit avg 27.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY27.2 moart unit avg 43.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility11% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)77%
§103 — Obviousness55% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness14%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW97%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW92%+5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 263 decided applications with an interview and 429 without.

ART UNIT 2138
258 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE

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

100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 82%
DISPOSITION213 / 1 / 44allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.9 moart unit avg 19.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY26.4 moart unit avg 32.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility14% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)68%
§103 — Obviousness49% · art unit 71%
§112 — Written description & definiteness17%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW100%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW99%+1 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 55 decided applications with an interview and 159 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Pierre Miche Bataille

  • What is Pierre Miche Bataille's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's allowance rate is 93%, based on 1,652 decided applications (1,534 allowed, 118 abandoned) pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner has a public record spanning 3 art units (2136, 2138, 2186) within TC 2100.
  • Do allowance rates vary across this examiner's art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates in the examiner's art units range from 90% to 100%. The 93% pooled rate is an aggregate and masks this variation.
  • Does this pooled record predict the outcome of my application?
    No. Historical allowance rates are not predictions. They describe past outcomes only and do not forecast any specific application's result.
◈ 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 Pierre Miche Bataille 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: 1,696 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