LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/STANLEY K HILL
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Stanley K Hill

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 382 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION SEP 2021
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Stanley K Hill has allowed 320 of 382 decided applications (84%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

84% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2129 · 82%AU 2126 · 89%AU 2121 · 81%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Stanley K Hill has a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 382 disposed applications, 320 were allowed, yielding an 84% allowance rate. The allowance rate ranges from 81% to 89% across the examiner's art units. This pooled record spans art units 2121, 2126, and 2129 within TC 2100. The data reflects decided applications only; pending applications are excluded from the allowance-rate calculation.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates the examiner's work across multiple art units within TC 2100. The 84% allowance rate describes the share of decided applications (allowed or abandoned) across all units combined, and is historical—a summary of past dispositions. Individual art units may show different rates. Pooled figures do not function as 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 2129
234 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE

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

82% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION193 / 41 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.1 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.5 moart unit avg 42.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility52% · art unit 63%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)65%
§103 — Obviousness57% · art unit 75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness72%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW92%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW79%+13 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 59 decided applications with an interview and 175 without.

ART UNIT 2126
91 APPS · 89% ALLOWANCE

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

89% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION81 / 10 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION28.7 moart unit avg 29.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.9 moart unit avg 44.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility32% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)44%
§103 — Obviousness30% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness79%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW96%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW86%+10 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 25 decided applications with an interview and 66 without.

ART UNIT 2121
57 APPS · 81% ALLOWANCE

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

81% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 57%
DISPOSITION46 / 11 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.9 moart unit avg 27 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY38.1 moart unit avg 39.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility69% · art unit 46%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)75%
§103 — Obviousness40% · art unit 86%
§112 — Written description & definiteness88%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW95%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW73%+22 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 20 decided applications with an interview and 37 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Stanley K Hill

  • What is Stanley K Hill's overall allowance rate?
    84% of 382 disposed applications were allowed.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    3 art units: 2121, 2126, and 2129 in TC 2100.
  • Is the allowance rate the same in every art unit?
    No. The allowance rate ranges from 81% to 89% across the examiner's art units.
  • Does a pooled allowance rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The pooled figure is a historical summary and is not a prediction of any specific 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 Stanley K Hill 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: 382 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