LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/STEFAN STOYNOV
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Stefan Stoynov

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 1,332 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 Stefan Stoynov has allowed 1,214 of 1,332 decided applications (91%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

91% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2116 · 88%AU 2186 · 94%AU 2175 · 98%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Stefan Stoynov maintains a public record across three art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 1,332 disposed applications, the overall allowance rate is 91%. This figure reflects 1,214 allowed applications and 118 abandoned applications. The allowance rate ranges from 88% to 98% across the three art units where the examiner maintains a substantial record, reflecting variation in the decided outcomes within the technology center.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates outcomes across multiple art units into a single overall figure. The 91% allowance rate describes the examiner's past record of decided cases across all three art units combined. This aggregate figure is a historical snapshot and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Art-unit-level rates may differ from the overall pooled rate; those appear in separate detail pages.

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 2116
748 APPS · 88% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines control or regulating systems.

88% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 78%
DISPOSITION656 / 92 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.8 moart unit avg 24.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.3 moart unit avg 37.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility27% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)63%
§103 — Obviousness53% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness58%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW97%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW83%+14 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 236 decided applications with an interview and 512 without.

ART UNIT 2186
374 APPS · 94% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

94% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION352 / 22 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16.8 moart unit avg 22.9 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY23.6 moart unit avg 35 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)53%
§103 — Obviousness58% · art unit 83%
§112 — Written description & definiteness62%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW97%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW92%+5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 142 decided applications with an interview and 232 without.

ART UNIT 2175
226 APPS · 98% ALLOWANCE

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

98% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION206 / 4 / 16allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23 moart unit avg 22.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY25.8 moart unit avg 37.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility19% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)53%
§103 — Obviousness64% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness64%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW100%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW97%+3 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 85 decided applications with an interview and 125 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Stefan Stoynov

  • What is Stefan Stoynov's overall allowance rate?
    The overall allowance rate is 91%, based on 1,332 disposed applications (1,214 allowed and 118 abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner maintains a record across three art units in TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across art units?
    Allowance rates range from 88% to 98% across the three art units with substantial records.
  • What does the pooled rate mean for my application?
    The pooled rate is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction of any specific application. Individual outcomes depend on the merits of each 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 Stefan Stoynov 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: 1,348 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