LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/SETH ADAM SILVERMAN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Seth Adam Silverman

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 611 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 Seth Adam Silverman has allowed 485 of 611 decided applications (79%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

79% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2145 · 78%AU 2172 · 94%AU 2141 · 27%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Seth Adam Silverman maintains a public record of 663 total applications across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 611 disposed applications, 485 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 79%. The examiner's record spans art units 2141, 2145, and 2172. Allowance rates vary across these art units, ranging from 27% to 94%. This pooled figure reflects the aggregate of decisions made across all three art units and does not represent the rate for any single art unit.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, presenting an overall snapshot of dispositions and allowance rates. The 79% allowance rate describes past-decided applications and is not a prediction of outcomes for any pending or future application. Because this record spans three art units with differing allowance rates (27% to 94%), the overall figure masks variation by subject matter and art unit. Individual art-unit records are available separately for more granular analysis.

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 2145
462 APPS · 78% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

78% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION359 / 103 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION15.7 moart unit avg 26.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY30.7 moart unit avg 45.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility40% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)94%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness48%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW81%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW75%+6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 204 decided applications with an interview and 258 without.

ART UNIT 2172
179 APPS · 94% ALLOWANCE
94% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION120 / 7 / 52allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.2 moart unit avg 24.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY25.8 moart unit avg 44.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility22% · art unit 42%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)98%
§103 — Obviousness95% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness20%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW93%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW95%-2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 43 decided applications with an interview and 84 without.

ART UNIT 2141
22 APPS · 27% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

27% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION6 / 16 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.2 moart unit avg 28.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.6 moart unit avg 47.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility36% · art unit 49%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)91%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 91%
§112 — Written description & definiteness36%

Based on 22 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Seth Adam Silverman

  • What is Seth Adam Silverman's overall allowance rate?
    Of 611 disposed applications, 485 were allowed, for an allowance rate of 79%. This figure describes past decisions and is not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner's record spans 3 art units (2141, 2145, and 2172) within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across art units?
    Allowance rates range from 27% to 94% across the examiner's art units. This variation reflects differences in subject matter and application characteristics by art unit.
  • What does this pooled record mean for my application?
    This pooled figure aggregates past decisions across three art units and does not predict outcomes for any individual application. Review the specific art unit's record for more relevant context to your 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 Seth Adam Silverman 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: 663 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