LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/VINCENT F BOCCIO
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Vincent F Boccio

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 760 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAR 2025
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Vincent F Boccio has allowed 626 of 760 decided applications (82%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

82% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2158 · 80%AU 2162 · 90%AU 2165 · 67%AU 2169 · 74%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Vincent F Boccio has a public record of 760 disposed applications across 4 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of those decided applications, 626 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 82%. The examiner's allowance rate ranges from 67% to 90% across these art units. This pooled figure represents the aggregate record across all four art units and reflects historical dispositions rather than a prediction for any specific pending application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates decisions from multiple art units within TC 2100, combining different subject areas and examination histories into a single figure. The 82% allowance rate describes past dispositions across 760 decided applications. Pooled statistics do not predict outcomes on any individual application, nor do they account for differences in claim scope, prior art, or prosecution strategy among cases. The range of rates across art units reflects variation in those separate workstreams.

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 2158
455 APPS · 80% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

80% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 48%
DISPOSITION365 / 90 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.1 moart unit avg 23.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.3 moart unit avg 49.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility54% · art unit 52%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)76%
§103 — Obviousness83% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness27%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW87%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW73%+14 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 241 decided applications with an interview and 214 without.

ART UNIT 2162
241 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

90% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION217 / 24 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION21.7 moart unit avg 23.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.3 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility48% · art unit 56%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)86%
§103 — Obviousness78% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness29%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW92%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW89%+3 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 118 decided applications with an interview and 123 without.

ART UNIT 2165
45 APPS · 67% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

67% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION30 / 15 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION32.5 moart unit avg 22.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY45.8 moart unit avg 39.6 mo
ART UNIT 2169
19 APPS · 74% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

74% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 47%
DISPOSITION14 / 5 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION36.1 moart unit avg 24.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY57.8 moart unit avg 40 mo
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Vincent F Boccio

  • What is Vincent F Boccio's overall allowance rate?
    82%, calculated from 626 allowed applications among 760 disposed applications in his pooled record.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Four art units (2158, 2162, 2165, 2169), all within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across his art units?
    Yes. The range of allowance rates across these art units spans from 67% to 90%. This pooled statistic does not attribute any specific rate to any named art unit.
  • Does this pooled record predict the outcome of my application?
    No. Historical allowance rates describe past dispositions and are not predictions of any specific pending 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 Vincent F Boccio 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: 760 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