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

Examiner Sheryl L Holland

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 298 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION SEP 2021
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Sheryl L Holland has allowed 160 of 298 decided applications (54%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

54% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2161 · 64%AU 2164 · 28%AU 2157 · 48%AU 2158 · 59%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Sheryl L Holland maintains a public record across 4 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 298 disposed applications, the examiner's pooled allowance rate is 54%, comprised of 160 allowed and 138 abandoned applications. Allowance rates across the examiner's art units range from 28% to 64%, reflecting variation in the record by individual art unit. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes across all tracked art units and describes the historical record only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines data from multiple art units into a single aggregate allowance rate. This aggregate describes past dispositions across all art units worked by the examiner and is not a prediction about any specific application. Allowance rates vary by art unit; the range reported here (28% to 64%) shows that variation. Pooled figures serve as a general reference to the examiner's overall historical record in TC 2100.

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 2161
182 APPS · 64% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

64% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 62%
DISPOSITION116 / 66 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.9 moart unit avg 23.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY56.5 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility72% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)41%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness76%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW73%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW37%+36 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 136 decided applications with an interview and 46 without.

ART UNIT 2164
69 APPS · 28% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

28% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 62%
DISPOSITION19 / 50 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.4 moart unit avg 22.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY61.6 moart unit avg 43.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility92% · art unit 58%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)64%
§103 — Obviousness98% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness77%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW47%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW11%+36 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 32 decided applications with an interview and 37 without.

ART UNIT 2157
25 APPS · 48% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

48% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION12 / 13 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.1 moart unit avg 28 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY44.1 moart unit avg 46.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility67% · art unit 48%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)67%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness50%

Based on 25 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2158
22 APPS · 59% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

59% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 48%
DISPOSITION13 / 9 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.9 moart unit avg 23.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.7 moart unit avg 49.3 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Sheryl L Holland

  • What is Sheryl L Holland's overall allowance rate?
    54% over 298 decided applications, pooled across all art units. This is the share of allowed applications among all disposed cases.
  • How many art units does this examiner work?
    Four art units (2157, 2158, 2161, 2164) in Technology Center 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across art units?
    Allowance rates range from 28% to 64% across the examiner's art units with substantial records.
  • Is the 54% rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The pooled allowance rate describes the historical record and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome.
◈ 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 Sheryl L Holland 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: 298 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