| TL;DR – This is a research-led analysis of Tesla’s 100 most recent U.S. patent grants. Using data from Google BigQuery and the TIP Tool™ Examiner Analysis, we examine which technology areas dominate Tesla’s portfolio and what kinds of examiners handled those applications. We identify which examiners were most challenging and break down which prosecution strategies actually work before each one. The data reveals: the strategy that succeeds before one examiner can backfire before another. We also show you a four-step check to run the moment an examiner is assigned to your application. Finally, we look at what applicants can still influence before prosecution begins: the art unit in which an application is likely to land. |
If you have seen our Apple patent analysis, you know the value of understanding examiner behavior. We looked at which examiners handled Apple’s recent 100 grants, how differently they behave, and how that knowledge shapes your prosecution strategy and your odds of getting a patent.
We’re doing the same analysis for Tesla.
The methodology is straightforward: Google BigQuery to source the patents, the TIP Tool™ for Examiner Analysis to extract performance data.
Here’s what we set out to decode:
- Which technology areas Tesla is actually getting its patents in
- What kind of examiners handled those applications
- Which examiners were toughest and which prosecution strategies worked before each one
- What aspects of the process are still in your control
Let’s get started.
Top 5 Technology Areas Tesla is Actually Getting Patents
The USPTO organises examinations into nine Technology Centers departments, in effect. Each contains roughly 50 art units, which are teams of 12 to 25 examiners. The numbering tells you both: art unit 1723 sits inside Technology Center 1700.
By examining the art units where Tesla’s patents landed, we determined which technology areas dominated their portfolio.
| Technology Center | Patents | What Tesla Filed Here |
| 1700 (Chemical & Materials Engineering) | 26 | Dry electrode films, electrolyte formulations, lithium extraction, aluminium alloys, photovoltaic components, vehicle glass |
| 3600 (Transportation & Vehicle Systems) | 20 | Door handle assemblies, seatbelt detection, steering components, autonomous driving pipelines |
| 2100 (Computer Architecture & Software) | 11 | Computational arrays, neural network hardware, vehicle interfaces |
| 2800 (Semiconductors & Electrical) | 11 | Headlamps, power disconnect systems, electronic assemblies, some electrolyte work |
| 2600 (Communications) | 8 | Object detection, visual image estimation, fault prediction |
Tesla’s largest patent category by count is chemistry and materials, representing 30% of their portfolio. This exceeds both transportation and software individually.
But these patents aren’t just academic material science projects. They represent the core technologies that make electric vehicles perform better and last longer.
Now we know where Tesla filed. The next question is just as important: who examined those applications? And did it matter? Let’s find out.
What Kind of Patent Examiners Handled Tesla’s Applications
Tesla’s chemical and materials patents were handled by the least allowance-friendly examiner group in our Technology Center 1700 (Chemical & Materials), where Tesla concentrated 26 of its 100 patents, which presents a more challenging examination environment than other Technology Centers.
The data below shows examiner’s allowance rates and their average grant times across all Technology Centers, revealing how much the difficulty varies by technical field.
| Technology Center | Examiner allowance rate | Average grant time |
| 1700 (Chemical & Materials) | 67.5% | 3.11 yrs |
| 2100 (Computer Architecture & Software) | 70.5% | 3.22 yrs |
| 3700 (Mechanical & Manufacturing) | 71.2% | 2.94 yrs |
| 2400 (Computer Networks & Security) | 71.6% | 2.95 yrs |
| 3600 (Transportation & Vehicle Systems) | 74.6% | 2.56 yrs |
| 2800 (Semiconductors & Electrical) | 80.8% | 2.40 yrs |
| 2600 (Communications) | 83.3% | 2.62 yrs |
The Technology Center average tells you the bigger picture. But within that environment, individual examiners behave very differently, and that’s what determines how difficult your prosecution will be.
With that said, let’s look at the most challenging examiners we found in our data who handled Tesla’s patent grants. We’ll also explore what prosecution strategies are more likely to work with them.
But before that, let’s look at another factor we noticed that may have influenced the examination outcomes, even if only a little.
Does More Examiner Experience Mean a Tougher Patent Examination
It is natural to assume that a more experienced examiner will be more demanding. The same assumption appears in other settings: when a senior teacher takes your viva, you expect tougher questioning. Seniority means harder papers, sharper follow-ups, less patience for weak arguments.
Patent examiner data tells a different story.
We grouped the examiner assignments behind Tesla’s 100 patents into five experience buckets based on the total number of applications each examiner has handled throughout their career.
The pattern was unambiguous: more experienced examiners were more likely to allow applications and more likely to do so without first issuing a rejection. As examiner experience increased, allowance rates rose and average time to grant declined.
| Applications handled (career) | Examiners | Allowance rate | Average grant time |
| Under 250 | 12 | 57.3% | 3.1 yrs |
| 250–500 | 22 | 65.0% | 3.2 yrs |
| 500–1,000 | 27 | 69.8% | 3.1 yrs |
| 1,000–2,000 | 28 | 79.3% | 2.7 yrs |
| 2,000+ | 5 | 90.1% | 2.1 yrs |
That does not mean every senior examiner is easier to work with. Examiner difficulty still varies significantly at the individual level. For example, Bach T. Dinh has examined 1,159 applications and allows at 54.7%. This is 25 points below the average for his experience tier.
That said, now let’s look at the ten toughest examiners Tesla encountered for these recent grants.
The Ten Toughest Patent Examiners Tesla Drew
To avoid thin records, we included only examiners who had handled at least 250 applications throughout their career.
More importantly, we defined “toughest” not by absolute allowance rate, but by the gap between an examiner’s rate and their art unit average.
An examiner at 70% allowance operating in an art unit averaging 90% is genuinely tough. They’re rejecting applications their peers would grant easily. That 20-point gap is our signal.
Here’s the list:
| # | Examiner | Applications Handled | Art Unit | Art Unit Average Allowance Rate | Examiner Allowance Rate | Gap | Average Office Actions | Average Grant Time |
| 1 | Conrad R. Pack | 273 | 2174 | 81.6% | 30.4% | −51.2 pts | 3.7 | 4.3 yrs |
| 2 | Trinh. Thanh Truc | 967 | 1726 | 63.4% | 22.9% | −40.5 pts | 3.1 | 4.6 yrs |
| 3 | Rexford N. Barnie | 298 | 2836 | 86.4% | 47.2% | −39.2 pts | 1.2 | 2.8 yrs |
| 4 | Robert W. Hodge | 433 | 3654 | 73.1% | 44.4% | −28.7 pts | 2.5 | 4.3 yrs |
| 5 | Frank J. Vineis | 268 | 1781 | 65.8% | 38.0% | −27.8 pts | 3.6 | 4.2 yrs |
| 6 | Aryan E. Weisenfeld | 461 | 3663 | 64.2% | 47.1% | −17.1 pts | 2.0 | 3.4 yrs |
| 7 | Nicole T. Gugliotta | 714 | 1781 | 69.2% | 51.5% | −17.7 pts | 2.5 | 3.5 yrs |
| 8 | Bach T. Dinh | 1,159 | 1726 | 70.7% | 54.7% | −16.0 pts | 2.2 | 3.1 yrs |
| 9 | Keith D. Hendricks | 353 | 1733 | 71.8% | 55.0% | −16.8 pts | 1.2 | 2.7 yrs |
| 10 | Ciel P. Contreras | 901 | 1794 | 67.9% | 53.8% | −14.1 pts | 2.2 | 3.0 yrs |
At first glance, a low allowance rate looks like a sign of a long prosecution. Often it is, but not always. Thanh Truc Trinh, Conrad R. Pack, and Frank J. Vineis average more office actions and take over four years to reach grant, while Rexford N. Barnie moves faster with fewer rounds.
Hence, the examiner’s allowance rate alone should not be the deciding factor in whether to continue prosecution or abandon an application.
Which Prosecution Strategy Works With The Toughest Examiners
What works with one examiner may not work with another.
To understand this, we picked three of the toughest examiners in the Tesla dataset. Using the TIP Tool, we extracted their historical data: out of all applications they examined, how many were granted after an interview, how many after an RCE, and how many after an appeal.
Based on this historical data from each examiner’s record, we will see which prosecution path gives you the most possibility of getting a grant for these very examiners.
| Examiner | Examiner’s Allowance Rate | Allowance Rate Post Interview | Allowance Rate Post RCE | Allowance Rate Post Appeal | Path That Works Best |
| Ciel P. Contreras | 53.8% | 85.5% (55) | 59.3% (216) | 28.6% (14) | Interview |
| Keith D. Hendricks | 55.0% | 60.0% (25) | 71.2% (52) | 25.0% (12) | RCE |
| Trinh. Thanh Truc | 22.9% | 20.9% (86) | 26.6% (353) | 36.8% (76) | Appeal |
Interview: What the Data Says
Even among the same pool of tough examiners, interviews produced a 32-point lift for one and did nothing for another.
| Examiner | Examiner’s Allowance Rate | Allowance Rate with Interview | Interview Lift | Strategy Signal |
| Ciel P. Contreras | 53.8% | 85.5% | +31.7 pp | Strong lift |
| Keith D. Hendricks | 55.0% | 60.0% | +5.0 pp | A very small lift |
| Trinh. Thanh Truc | 22.9% | 20.9% | −2.0 pp | Does not work |
RCE: What the Data Says
RCEs tell a similarly split story; a strong signal for Keith D. Hendricks, but only marginal gains for the other two.
| Examiner | Examiner’s Allowance Rate | Allowance Rate with RCE | RCE Lift | Strategy Signal |
| Ciel P. Contreras | 53.8% | 59.3% | +5.5 pp | A very small lift |
| Keith D. Hendricks | 55.0% | 71.2% | +16.2 pp | Strong lift |
| Trinh. Thanh Truc | 22.9% | 26.6% | +3.7 pp | A very small lift |
Appeals: What the Data Says
Appeals are the only strategy that moves the needle for Thanh Truc Trinh, but they actively hurt outcomes for Contreras and Hendricks.
| Examiner | Examiner’s Allowance Rate | Allowance Rate with Appeal | Appeal Lift | Strategy Signal |
| Ciel P. Contreras | 53.8% | 28.6% | −25.2 pp | Does not work |
| Keith D. Hendricks | 55.0% | 25.0% | −30.0 pp | Does not work |
| Trinh. Thanh Truc | 22.9% | 36.8% | +13.9 pp | Moderate lift |
While we decoded and analyzed the three toughest examiners Tesla encountered, your application may be assigned to a different examiner. If you’re unsure how to proceed, use Triangle IP’s Examiner Analysis to see whether interviews, appeals, or RCEs have historically produced better outcomes before that examiner.
Here’s what you can do once you find your assigned examiner:
- Look up the assigned examiner’s allowance rate.
- Compare it to the art unit average. A wide gap means the friction is the examiner, not the group art unit.
- Check the interview lift before the first response is due. If it’s over 10 points, it is worth booking the call.
- Check the post-RCE allowance rate before spending the fee.
This is our quick video explaining how to use the Examiner Analysis to plan your prosecution strategy once your examiners are assigned.
However, the stronger strategy starts while drafting, when you can predict the art units your application is likely to land in and adjust the claims and technical framing to improve the chances of reaching a more favorable one.
Read More: How to Optimize Patent Prosecution Strategy with the Art Unit Predictor.
The Takeaway
Tesla secured all 100 patents, but the path to grant varied widely. Examiner allowance rates ranged from 21.5% to 88.5%, and the time and effort required to reach allowance differed just as sharply. That is why no patent team should rely on allowance rate alone.
- Before filing, use the Art Unit Predictor to assess where your draft claims are likely to land and whether their technical framing can be refined toward a more favorable art unit.
- After examiner assignment, use Triangle IP’s Examiner Analysis to see whether interviews, RCEs, or appeals have historically produced better outcomes before that examiner.
Additionally, before any of this, you need the right prosecutor in your corner. Now Triangle IP has a Prosecutor Analysis tool that helps you choose counsel based on performance, not reputation. It shows how attorneys have performed against the examiners and art-unit benchmarks. That way, you can see who is genuinely well suited to handle the prosecution environment your application is likely to face.
There is more to it. For a walkthrough against your live portfolio, book a demo.
Disclaimer: The examiner statistics referenced in this article were sourced from the TIP Tool™ by Triangle IP at the time of publication. For the current examiner statistics, visit app.triangleip.com/ea and search the Examiner Statistics tool directly. Patent application data was sourced from the Google Patents Public Dataset on BigQuery. This article is intended for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. How Do I Find My Patent Examiner’s Allowance Rate?
You can use patent analytics tools like Examiner Analysis from Triangle IP to look up your patent examiner’s allowance rate. These tools also provide valuable prosecution insights, including the examiner’s average grant time, average number of office actions, and the strategies that have historically been most effective, such as Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs), examiner interviews, and appeals. This information can help you better understand the examiner’s behavior and make more informed decisions in prosecution.
2. What is the Difference Between a Technology Center And an Art Unit?
At the USPTO, Technology Centers (TCs) and Art Units (AUs) are part of a hierarchy. A Technology Center is the broader organization, while an Art Unit is the smaller team that actually examines patent applications.
| Technology Center | Art Unit |
| A large division organized by technology area | A small examining group within a Technology Center |
| Contains many Art Units | Belongs to one Technology Center |
| May have hundreds of examiners | Usually has around 8–20 examiners |
| Example: TC 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software & Information Security) | Example: AU 2166 (a software-related art unit within TC 2100) |
3. Can I Influence Which Art Unit My Application Goes To?
Yes, you can influence which art unit reviews your application by carefully choosing or adjusting the keywords in your claims before filing. The patent office uses these words to automatically sort your application into specific technology categories. By adjusting your phrasing, you can increase your chances of routing away from difficult review groups.
You can use the Group art unit predictor to find out where your patent is likely to land earlier. Using the art unit predictor has more merits, such as suggesting a group of terms to guide patent drafting to a suitable GAU.
4. Is A High Allowance Rate Enough To Plan a Patent Budget Around?
No, planning a patent budget solely around a high allowance rate is highly risky. Allowance only indicates a final grant, not the financial journey. You must account for the unpredictable costs of patent prosecution, such as multiple office action responses, which are common even for highly allowable applications.
