LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/ANDREW T MCINTOSH
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Andrew T Mcintosh

TECH CENTER 2100 · 2 ART UNITS · 551 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS

Examiner Andrew T Mcintosh has allowed 429 of 551 decided applications (78%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

78% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2176 · 73%AU 2144 · 94%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Andrew T Mcintosh has disposed of 551 applications across 2 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of those decided applications, 429 were allowed and 122 were abandoned, yielding an overall allowance rate of 78%. The examiner's record spans multiple art units within TC 2100, and allowance rates across these units range from 73% to 94%. This pooled figure reflects the aggregate of the examiner's work across all assigned art units and represents past decisions on applications that have been decided.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units within TC 2100. The overall allowance rate reflects decided applications—those allowed or abandoned—and excludes pending cases. Pooled figures describe the examiner's historical record and are not predictions of outcomes for any specific application. Cross-art-unit records average different subject areas and examination patterns, so the aggregate rate provides context on the examiner's overall record but does not predict individual case results.

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 2176
424 APPS · 73% ALLOWANCE

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

73% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 59%
DISPOSITION309 / 115 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION18.8 moart unit avg 23.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.9 moart unit avg 40.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility45% · art unit 41%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)49%
§103 — Obviousness93% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness36%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW84%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW63%+21 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 196 decided applications with an interview and 228 without.

ART UNIT 2144
167 APPS · 94% ALLOWANCE
94% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION120 / 7 / 40allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.1 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY41.3 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility66% · art unit 45%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)51%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 92%
§112 — Written description & definiteness37%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW98%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW91%+7 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 59 decided applications with an interview and 68 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Andrew T Mcintosh

  • What is Andrew T Mcintosh's overall allowance rate?
    78% of his 551 decided applications were allowed. This is a pooled figure across all his art units and describes his past record, not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Andrew T Mcintosh has a public record spanning 2 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • Do allowance rates vary across his art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates range from 73% to 94% across his art units. The pooled figure of 78% aggregates this variation.
  • What do these figures mean for my application?
    These figures describe the examiner's historical record on decided applications. They are not predictions of any specific application outcome and do not account for the unique facts, claims, or prior art of any individual case.
◈ 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 Andrew T Mcintosh 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: 591 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