Startup Patent Allowance Rates by Industry in 2026

The overall patent allowance rate at the USPTO sits around 74-75% as of early 2026. That sounds reassuring until you look at the breakdown.

If you're a well-resourced large entity with a dedicated patent department and outside counsel on retainer, your allowance rate is closer to 80%. If you're a small entity, which is how most startups file, it drops to 61%. And micro entities (solo inventors, very early-stage companies) see just 40%.

But entity size is only half the story. The space your startup operates in has a major effect on whether your application gets allowed — and how much pain you'll go through to get there. Here's what the numbers actually look like, industry by industry, and what they mean if you're a founder trying to decide when and how to file.

How the USPTO organizes patent examination

Before diving into specific industries, it helps to understand the system. The USPTO doesn't sort applications by "industry" in the way founders think about it. Instead, applications are assigned to technology centers (TCs) — groups of examiners who specialize in particular technical domains.

Your medical device patent might land in TC 3700 (Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Medical Devices). Your AI-powered diagnostic tool could end up in TC 2100 (Computer Architecture and Software) or TC 3600 (Electronic Commerce and related areas), depending on how the claims are written. The same underlying product can face dramatically different examination standards depending on which technology center handles it.

This is why claim drafting matters so much. It's not just about describing what your invention does; how you frame it determines which examiner group reviews it, which body of prior art they search, and how legal standards are applied.

Allowance rates by technology center

Here's the current landscape, based on recent USPTO data. 

TC 2800 — Semiconductors, Circuits, Optics, and Measuring/Testing: ~85%

Semiconductor and hardware startups benefit from some of the highest allowance rates at the USPTO. The claims tend to be grounded in physical structures and measurable improvements, which makes them easier for examiners to evaluate and harder to reject on abstract-idea grounds. If your startup is building custom chips, sensor hardware, or optical systems, you're operating in one of the more favorable examination environments.

TC 2600 — Communications: ~84%

Communications technology (like wireless protocols, signal processing, networking infrastructure) also sees strong allowance rates. These applications typically involve specific technical implementations rather than high-level concepts, which helps them clear the eligibility bar without much friction.

TC 2400 — Networking, Security, and Multiplexing: ~81%

Cybersecurity startups and companies building networking infrastructure fall here. The rates are solid, though applications that lean heavily on software-implemented security methods (rather than novel architectural approaches) can run into Section 101 challenges.

TC 2100 — Computer Architecture and Software: ~77%

This is where things get more interesting for software startups. A 77% allowance rate is still respectable, but the path to get there is often bumpier. Software-related applications face the Alice/Mayo eligibility framework, which means examiners will scrutinize whether your claims describe a genuine technical improvement or just an abstract idea implemented on a computer. (If you're wondering whether your SaaS product qualifies at all, we covered that in detail in our guide to patenting SaaS.)

The good news is that recent USPTO guidance has been trending in applicants' favor. An August 2025 memo from the Deputy Commissioner for Patents reminded examiners to limit "mental process" rejections to steps that can actually be performed in the human mind, to distinguish between claims that "recite" an abstract idea versus ones that merely "involve" one, and to apply a preponderance standard where close calls should not result in rejections.

For AI and machine learning startups specifically, the landscape shifted meaningfully in late 2025. The precedential Ex parte Desjardins decision (November 2025) recognized that improvements to machine learning models themselves — things like reduced storage requirements, better training efficiency, or prevention of catastrophic forgetting — qualify as technological advances eligible for patent protection. 

In other words, if your AI startup is improving how models work rather than just applying standard ML to a new dataset, your prosecution path just got clearer.

TC 3600 — Transportation, Construction, E-Commerce, Agriculture: ~72%

This is a grab-bag technology center, and it shows. The 72% rate reflects the wide variance in what gets examined here. A construction technology startup with a novel structural system will have a very different experience than a fintech company whose claims look like business methods with a software wrapper.

E-commerce and business method patents still face aggressive Section 101 scrutiny in TC 3600. If your startup operates at the intersection of physical processes and software (precision agriculture, autonomous logistics), your claims need to emphasize the concrete, technical improvements rather than the business outcome.

TC 3700 — Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Medical Devices: ~70%

Medical device startups, manufacturing companies, and mechanical engineering firms land here. The 70% allowance rate might seem surprisingly low for "hardware" inventions, but this technology center covers an enormous range of applications and sees a high volume of prior art challenges.

Medical devices in particular face a double challenge: the claims need to be specific enough to overcome prior art (there's a lot of it in the medtech space), but broad enough to actually protect the product you're commercializing. Examiners in TC 3700 tend to be thorough, and many applications go through multiple rounds of office actions before allowance.

The upside is that Section 101 eligibility rejections are relatively rare here. Your biggest hurdles will be novelty (Section 102) and obviousness (Section 103), which are more straightforward to argue against with well-prepared applications.

TC 1600 — Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry: ~66%

Biotech has the lowest allowance rate of any technology center. The reasons are structural. Biotech claims often involve natural phenomena or products of nature, which trigger eligibility concerns under the Mayo framework. Enablement and written description requirements are also applied strictly — you need to show that your patent application actually teaches someone how to make and use the full scope of what you're claiming, which is particularly difficult when dealing with biological systems where outcomes aren't always predictable.

For biotech founders, this means two things. First, your patent budget should account for longer prosecution timelines and more rounds of office actions than those in other spaces. Second, the specification needs to be loaded with supporting data. Prophetic examples (hypothetical experiments described in future tense) are acceptable, but examiners will push back hard if the claims extend well beyond what the data supports.

The entity-size gap: what it means for startups

That 80% vs. 61% vs. 40% allowance rate split between large, small, and micro entities isn't evidence that the USPTO is biased against small filers. The more likely explanation is less dramatic but just as important: claim quality, prosecution strategy, and willingness to continue prosecution all correlate strongly with resources.

Large entities tend to have patent departments that review claims before filing, outside counsel who know the examiners and art units, and budgets to file RCEs (Requests for Continued Examination) when applications get rejected. Many small entities and most micro entities are filing with less specialized support and are more likely to abandon applications after a final rejection rather than continuing prosecution.

The practical takeaway for founders: the quality of your initial application matters far more than most founders realize. A well-drafted application with properly scoped claims, strong specification support, and anticipation of likely rejections will perform closer to the large-entity rate regardless of your filing status. A poorly prepared application will struggle regardless of how much money you throw at prosecution later. 

For a closer look at the most common ways startups undermine their own applications, see our post on the six biggest patent filing mistakes.

How AI and ML startups should think about filing in 2026

AI is worth calling out specifically because the eligibility landscape is shifting fast, and many founders are operating on outdated assumptions about whether their inventions are even patentable.

The short version: if your startup is genuinely improving how AI/ML technology works rather than just applying off-the-shelf models to a new vertical, your chances of getting a patent allowed are significantly better than they were two years ago.

The longer version involves a few developments founders should know about:

• The November 2025 USPTO guidance rescinded Biden-era rules around AI-assisted inventions and pulled examiners back to traditional Alice/Mayo principles with a focus on human conception. The practical effect is that examiners are now evaluating AI patents using the same framework as other software patents, without a separate (and often more restrictive) AI-specific standard.
• The Federal Circuit's Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp. decision (April 2025) drew a clear line: patents that do nothing more than apply generic machine learning to new data environments are ineligible. But patents that disclose actual improvements to the ML models themselves are on solid ground.

The key drafting principle: anchor your claims in the specific technical improvement. "A method for predicting customer churn using a neural network" is almost certainly going to face a 101 rejection. "A method for reducing training data requirements by 40% through a modified attention mechanism that selectively prunes redundant feature maps" tells a completely different story to an examiner.

What the numbers don't tell you

Allowance rates are useful directional data, but they can mislead founders in a few ways.

First, these rates include applications that were allowed after multiple rounds of rejection and amendment. A 77% allowance rate in TC 2100 doesn't mean 77% of applications sail through on the first try. The first-action allowance rate across the USPTO is roughly 15%, meaning the vast majority of applications receive at least one rejection before they're allowed. Rejection is the norm, not a signal that something went wrong.

Second, the rates don't distinguish between strong patents and weak ones. An application can be "allowed" with claims that have been narrowed so severely during prosecution that they no longer meaningfully protect the founder's product. Getting a patent isn't the same as getting a useful patent. (This is something investors will scrutinize during patent due diligence.)

Third, continuation filings skew the numbers. Many allowed applications are continuations of previously allowed patents — the applicant already knows what the examiner found allowable and drafts claims accordingly. A continuation "counts" in the allowance rate just the same as a brand-new application, even though they typically encounter less resistance than the first application in the patent family.

What founders should actually do with this information

If you're launching a new company and thinking about patents, here's where these numbers translate into action:

• Budget for your technology center, not the average: A biotech founder budgeting based on a 74% overall allowance rate is going to be surprised by the extra prosecution costs that come with a 66% rate. A semiconductor founder might find the process smoother than expected.
• Invest in the application, not just the filing: The entity-size gap tells us that application quality is the biggest controllable variable in whether your patent gets allowed. Spending more time and care on the initial specification and claims is a better investment than paying for extra rounds of prosecution after a weak application draws rejections.
• Get the claims framed correctly from the start: This is especially true if your invention spans software and hardware, or if it involves AI/ML. Where your application lands in the technology center system has real consequences for how it's examined. A patent professional who understands how to position claims for the most favorable examination path is worth the investment.
• Don't treat a first rejection as failure: Most patents get rejected at least once. The question isn't whether you'll get an office action; it's whether your application was strong enough that the office action is manageable.

The bottom line

Patent allowance rates vary by almost 20 percentage points depending on your technology area, and by 40 points depending on your entity size and resources. For startup founders, these directly affect your IP budget, your timeline to protection, and the likelihood that you'll end up with a patent that actually matters.

The founders who do best in this system are the ones who treat the patent application as an engineering problem: understand the specific examination environment for your technology, build the strongest possible specification and claims before you file, and plan for prosecution rather than hoping you won't need it.

Patentext gives startup founders the same application quality that drives large-entity allowance rates, without the law firm timeline or price tag. Start your patent application →

‍

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Patent laws are complex and vary by jurisdiction. For personalized guidance, consult a qualified patent attorney or agent.

‍