LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/STEVEN PAUL SAX
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Steven Paul Sax

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 701 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Steven Paul Sax has allowed 523 of 701 decided applications (75%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

75% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2174 · 66%AU 2146 · 96%AU 2176 · 82%AU 2173 · 100%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Steven Paul Sax has a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security) spanning 4 art units. Across 701 decided applications, he has allowed 523, for an allowance rate of 75%. The allowance rates across his art units range from 66% to 96%, reflecting variation in the composition and outcomes of applications within each unit. These figures describe the examiner's pooled historical record and are not predictions for any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates applications across multiple art units in TC 2100. The 75% allowance rate is a historical average calculated over 701 decided applications and describes the examiner's past work. Aggregate figures do not forecast outcomes in any specific case. The range of rates (66% to 96%) reflects differences in application mix and results across individual art units, not examiner behavior.

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 2174
492 APPS · 66% ALLOWANCE
66% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION325 / 167 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.4 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.6 moart unit avg 42.9 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility31% · art unit 33%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)49%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness38%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW83%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW33%+50 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 327 decided applications with an interview and 165 without.

ART UNIT 2146
222 APPS · 96% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.

96% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 50%
DISPOSITION183 / 8 / 31allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION32.2 moart unit avg 32 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.7 moart unit avg 45 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility46% · art unit 70%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)48%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 90%
§112 — Written description & definiteness40%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW95%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW100%-5 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 153 decided applications with an interview and 38 without.

ART UNIT 2176
17 APPS · 82% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

82% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 59%
DISPOSITION14 / 3 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.3 moart unit avg 23.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY29.7 moart unit avg 40.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility0% · art unit 41%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)70%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness40%

Based on 17 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2173
1 APPS · 100% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA
100% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 49%
DISPOSITION1 / 0 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION10.2 moart unit avg 25.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY15.1 moart unit avg 40.1 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Steven Paul Sax

  • What is Steven Paul Sax's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 75%, based on 701 decided applications (523 allowed, 178 abandoned). This is a historical figure and is not a prediction for any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Steven Paul Sax has a record across 4 art units in Technology Center 2100: 2146, 2173, 2174, and 2176.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across his art units?
    Allowance rates across his art units range from 66% to 96%. This variation reflects the different composition and outcomes of applications within each art unit.
  • What does this pooled record mean for my application?
    This pooled record describes the examiner's historical aggregate performance and is not a prediction of the outcome in any individual case. Specific results depend on the merits of the application, art unit assignment, and examination history.
◈ 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 Steven Paul Sax 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: 732 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