LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/BRYNNE JOSEPHINE CORCORAN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Brynne Josephine Corcoran

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 307 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION APR 2025
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Brynne Josephine Corcoran has allowed 216 of 307 decided applications (70%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

70% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2187 · 75%AU 2118 · 56%AU 2176 · 84%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Brynne Josephine Corcoran has a public record spanning 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 70%, calculated over 307 disposed applications (216 allowed, 91 abandoned). Across the three art units, allowance rates range from 56% to 84%, reflecting variation in the record by subject-matter area. This overview aggregates all decisions across the examiner's assigned art units and represents historical outcomes only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates applications across multiple art units and provides a single allowance rate reflecting past decisions. The range shown (56% to 84%) indicates that allowance rates vary by art unit; the pooled figure (70%) is a combined measure and does not represent any single art unit's rate. Historical pooled data describes what has occurred, not predictions about any individual application's outcome.

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 2187
195 APPS · 75% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

75% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION146 / 49 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.7 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY34.2 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility31% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)75%
§103 — Obviousness93% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness84%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW80%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW69%+11 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 105 decided applications with an interview and 90 without.

ART UNIT 2118
87 APPS · 56% ALLOWANCE
56% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION49 / 38 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.6 moart unit avg 22.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.4 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)81%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness78%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW80%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW35%+45 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 41 decided applications with an interview and 46 without.

ART UNIT 2176
25 APPS · 84% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

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

84% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 59%
DISPOSITION21 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.5 moart unit avg 23.7 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY28.8 moart unit avg 40.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility29% · art unit 41%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)81%
§103 — Obviousness86% · art unit 87%
§112 — Written description & definiteness57%

Based on 25 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Brynne Josephine Corcoran

  • What is Examiner Corcoran's overall allowance rate?
    The examiner's pooled allowance rate is 70%, based on 307 disposed applications (216 allowed, 91 abandoned). This figure aggregates all art units in the examiner's record and is not a prediction of any specific application.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Examiner Corcoran has a record spanning 3 art units (2118, 2176, 2187) within TC 2100.
  • Why do allowance rates vary across art units?
    Allowance rates in this record range from 56% to 84% across the examiner's art units. Variation reflects differences in subject matter, application complexity, and prior decisions within each art unit, not the examiner's overall pooled rate.
  • What does the pooled rate tell me about my application?
    The pooled allowance rate describes historical outcomes across all the examiner's art units combined. It is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome and does not indicate the rate applicable to your particular art unit or technology.
◈ 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 Brynne Josephine Corcoran 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: 307 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