Examiner Carl P Lobo has allowed 21 of 104 decided applications (20%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Carl P Lobo's public record spans one art unit in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 104 disposed applications, 21 were allowed and 83 were abandoned, yielding an allowance rate of 20% over the decided record. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's output across all art units in TC 2100 and reflects historical dispositions only—it is not a predictor of any specific application's outcome.
This record aggregates applications across all art units assigned to the examiner. The allowance rate of 20% describes past dispositions pooled together and is a historical metric only. Aggregate figures do not predict outcomes on individual applications, which depend on claim scope, prior art, and prosecution particulars. Different art units within TC 2100 may have different profiles; per-art-unit data appears separately on this page.
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.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 63 decided applications with an interview and 41 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Carl P Lobo 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: 104 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