LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/SCOTT T BADERMAN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Scott T Baderman

TECH CENTER 2100 · 5 ART UNITS · 155 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 5 ART UNITS

Examiner Scott T Baderman has allowed 107 of 155 decided applications (69%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

69% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2113 · 88%AU 2118 · 73%AU 2144 · 4%AU 2184 · 95%AU 2114 · 44%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Scott T Baderman has a public record spanning 5 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 155 disposed applications, 107 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 69%. The examiner's allowance rate varies across the art units served: the range extends from 4% to 95%. This spread reflects the diversity of subject matter and application outcomes across the different art units in TC 2100.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data from 5 separate art units into a single profile. The overall 69% allowance rate represents historical outcomes across all these art units combined and describes past dispositions only. Pooled figures do not account for variations by art unit, technology, or application type, and are not predictions of any specific application's outcome.

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 2113
76 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines error detection, correction, and monitoring.

88% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 79%
DISPOSITION67 / 9 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30.1 moart unit avg 21.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.3 moart unit avg 32.4 mo
ART UNIT 2118
33 APPS · 73% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
73% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION11 / 4 / 18allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.3 moart unit avg 22.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY31.3 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility29% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)81%
§103 — Obviousness77% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness55%

Based on 33 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2144
26 APPS · 4% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
4% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION1 / 25 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.2 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.5 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility25% · art unit 45%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 92%
§112 — Written description & definiteness81%

Based on 26 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2184
22 APPS · 95% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines interconnection and data transfer between memory, I/O, and processing units.

95% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 78%
DISPOSITION21 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION11.8 moart unit avg 20.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY19.5 moart unit avg 31.7 mo
ART UNIT 2114
16 APPS · 44% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines error detection, correction, and monitoring.

44% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 84%
DISPOSITION7 / 9 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23 moart unit avg 23.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY27.2 moart unit avg 35.4 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Scott T Baderman

  • What is Scott T Baderman's overall allowance rate?
    69% across 155 disposed applications (allowed plus abandoned, excluding pending cases).
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    5 art units: 2113, 2114, 2118, 2144, and 2184, all within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 4% to 95% across the art units. The 69% figure is a pooled average and does not reflect any single art unit's rate.
  • What does this record show?
    A summary of past dispositions only. The figures describe historical outcomes and are not predictions for any pending or future 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 Scott T Baderman 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: 173 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