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

Examiner Sherrod L Keaton

TECH CENTER 2100 · 6 ART UNITS · 592 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 6 ART UNITS

Examiner Sherrod L Keaton has allowed 310 of 592 decided applications (52%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

52% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2142 · 48%AU 2148 · 68%AU 2178 · 65%AU 2175 · 32%AU 2173 · 62%AU 2174 · 0%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Sherrod L Keaton has a public record of 643 total applications across 6 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 592 disposed applications, 310 were allowed, yielding a pooled allowance rate of 52%. The examiner's allowance rate ranges from 32% to 68% across the individual art units represented in this record. This range reflects variation in outcomes among the different art-unit portfolios, though the pooled figure of 52% represents the aggregate result across all art units combined.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record aggregates Examiner Keaton's activity across multiple art units within TC 2100. The pooled allowance rate of 52% describes historical outcomes on decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's result. The range from 32% to 68% indicates that outcomes differ among the examiner's individual art units; the aggregate figure masks this variation. Historical statistics describe past dispositions and do not forecast prosecution of any particular case.

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 2142
309 APPS · 48% ALLOWANCE

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

48% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 45%
DISPOSITION149 / 160 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.2 moart unit avg 30.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY60.6 moart unit avg 48.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility49% · art unit 57%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)62%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 93%
§112 — Written description & definiteness32%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW63%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW29%+34 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 176 decided applications with an interview and 133 without.

ART UNIT 2148
146 APPS · 68% ALLOWANCE

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

68% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION65 / 30 / 51allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29.2 moart unit avg 29.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.4 moart unit avg 42.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility57% · art unit 70%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)90%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness36%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW75%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW58%+17 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 59 decided applications with an interview and 36 without.

ART UNIT 2178
91 APPS · 65% ALLOWANCE
65% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 54%
DISPOSITION59 / 32 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16.5 moart unit avg 25.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.8 moart unit avg 41.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility33% · art unit 36%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)87%
§103 — Obviousness95% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness33%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW75%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW41%+34 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 64 decided applications with an interview and 27 without.

ART UNIT 2175
75 APPS · 32% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines general computer details, and program control and execution.

32% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION24 / 51 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION32.2 moart unit avg 22.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY54.5 moart unit avg 37.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility40% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)60%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness0%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW63%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW15%+48 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 27 decided applications with an interview and 48 without.

ART UNIT 2173
21 APPS · 62% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
62% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION13 / 8 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION13.5 moart unit avg 25.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY31.2 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility33% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)90%
§103 — Obviousness95% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness19%

Based on 21 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2174
1 APPS · 0% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
0% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION0 / 1 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION38.6 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.2 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Sherrod L Keaton

  • What is Examiner Sherrod L Keaton's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 52%, calculated from 310 allowed applications among 592 total disposed applications across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Keaton has a public record spanning 6 art units (2142, 2148, 2173, 2174, 2175, 2178) within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 32% to 68% across the examiner's individual art units. The pooled figure of 52% is an aggregate across all art units combined.
  • What does this pooled record mean for my application?
    Historical statistics describe past dispositions and are not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Results vary by art unit and individual case facts.
◈ 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 Sherrod L Keaton 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: 643 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