Examiner William D Thomson has allowed 20 of 28 decided applications (71%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
William D Thomson has a public record spanning 2 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 28 disposed applications, Thomson has allowed 20 and abandoned 8, yielding an allowance rate of 71%. This rate is computed from decided applications only and does not include any pending filings. The pooled record aggregates outcomes across both art units and represents historical data only.
This pooled record combines outcomes from multiple art units into a single allowance rate. Aggregate figures describe what occurred across the examiner's caseload historically and do not constitute predictions about any individual application. A pooled rate obscures variation between art units; per-art-unit detail, when available separately, may differ from the aggregate shown here.
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.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner William D Thomson 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: 28 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