Examiner St John Courtenay Iii has allowed 86 of 92 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Patent Examiner St John Courtenay III maintains a pooled public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across dozens of decided applications, the examiner's allowance rate stands at 93%. This figure represents the share of applications that were allowed among all decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined) in the examiner's pooled record. The record spans multiple art units within TC 2100, aggregating outcomes across different subject-matter areas within computer architecture, software, and information security. This pooled allowance rate describes the examiner's historical record and does not constitute a prediction for any individual application.
A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, combining outcomes from different examination areas into a single overall figure. The allowance rate presented here reflects past decisions across all these units combined. Aggregate statistics describe historical patterns and do not predict outcomes in any specific application. When reviewing cross-art-unit records, note that the overall rate masks variation that may exist within individual art units; per-art-unit detail appears separately on this page.
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 →
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.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Primarily examines program control and execution.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Lynch LLP represents applicants in patent prosecution before the USPTO. These are general resources about the firm's services — not advice about this examiner or any specific application.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner St John Courtenay Iii 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 July 14, 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: 92 applications.
Rejection rates. Each §-rate is the share of this examiner's applications that drew at least one office-action rejection in which that statutory ground appears; applications with no rejection on record are excluded, and because grounds can co-occur the four do not sum to 100%. The art-unit figure beside each is the unweighted mean of the per-examiner rates across the art unit, published for §101 and §103 only. Beside the overall allowance rate we show a benchmark: for a single-art-unit examiner it is exactly that art unit's average, labeled “art-unit average”; for an examiner spanning several art units it is the “weighted peer average” — the per-art-unit averages, weighted by this examiner's application count in each — labeled distinctly because it is a blended figure, not any single art unit's average. Both are built from the same per-art-unit averages the panels show.
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