LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/RICHARD L BOWEN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Richard L Bowen

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 590 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 Richard L Bowen has allowed 483 of 590 decided applications (82%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

82% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2165 · 86%AU 2168 · 78%AU 2157 · 47%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Richard L Bowen maintains a public record of 614 total applications across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 590 disposed applications, 483 were allowed, yielding an 82% allowance rate. The allowance rate ranges from 78% to 86% across these art units, reflecting variation in the examiner's record by subject-matter area within TC 2100. The record includes 107 abandoned applications. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes across multiple art units and describes historical disposal patterns only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines outcomes from multiple art units into a single aggregate allowance rate and range. The 82% overall figure is a statistical summary of past disposals and reflects the examiner's historical pattern across different subject areas within TC 2100. The range (78%–86%) shows that allowance rates vary by art unit. Pooled data describe the record itself; they are not predictions for any individual application and do not indicate how the examiner will act on any specific filing.

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 2165
404 APPS · 86% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

86% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION325 / 55 / 24allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.7 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY32.9 moart unit avg 39.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility41% · art unit 54%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)95%
§103 — Obviousness84% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness45%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW91%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW77%+14 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 226 decided applications with an interview and 154 without.

ART UNIT 2168
193 APPS · 78% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

78% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION150 / 43 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION20.8 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.8 moart unit avg 43.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility49% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness95% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness53%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW93%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW55%+38 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 116 decided applications with an interview and 77 without.

ART UNIT 2157
17 APPS · 47% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

47% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION8 / 9 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30.1 moart unit avg 28 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.6 moart unit avg 46.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility69% · art unit 48%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)69%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness23%

Based on 17 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Richard L Bowen

  • What is Richard L Bowen's overall allowance rate?
    82% of his 590 disposed applications were allowed. This is calculated from allowed and abandoned applications combined and is a pooled figure across all art units.
  • How many art units does this record cover?
    3 art units: 2157, 2165, and 2168, all within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 78% to 86% across his art units, showing variation in the historical record by subject-matter area within TC 2100.
  • What does this pooled record tell me about my application?
    The pooled allowance rate describes historical outcomes and is not a prediction for any specific application. Disposition depends on the facts of the individual case.
◈ 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 Richard L Bowen 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: 614 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