LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/J MITCHELL CURRAN
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner J Mitchell Curran

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 123 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner J Mitchell Curran has allowed 81 of 123 decided applications (66%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

66% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2157 · 63%AU 2161 · 64%AU 2169 · 76%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

J Mitchell Curran holds a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 123 disposed applications, the allowance rate stands at 66%. Of 141 total applications in the examiner's record, 81 were allowed and 42 abandoned. The allowance rate ranges from 63% to 76% across these art units, reflecting variation in outcomes by subject matter within TC 2100. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's activity across all three units and describes the historical record only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record pools applications across multiple art units within TC 2100. The 66% allowance rate describes decided applications (allowed and abandoned combined) and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. The range from 63% to 76% across units reflects differences in examination patterns by subject matter. Pooled statistics describe past dispositions; they do not forecast results in individual cases or indicate how any particular application will be examined.

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 2157
63 APPS · 63% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

63% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 55%
DISPOSITION40 / 23 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.9 moart unit avg 28 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY39.7 moart unit avg 46.6 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20% · art unit 48%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)95%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness39%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW77%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW54%+23 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 26 decided applications with an interview and 37 without.

ART UNIT 2161
39 APPS · 64% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

64% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 62%
DISPOSITION25 / 14 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16.2 moart unit avg 23.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY33.3 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility43% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)92%
§103 — Obviousness95% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness30%

Based on 39 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2169
39 APPS · 76% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.

76% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 47%
DISPOSITION16 / 5 / 18allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION16 moart unit avg 24.8 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.4 moart unit avg 40 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility42% · art unit 57%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)97%
§103 — Obviousness97% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness22%

Based on 39 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner J Mitchell Curran

  • What is J Mitchell Curran's overall allowance rate?
    The allowance rate is 66%, based on 123 disposed applications (81 allowed, 42 abandoned). This figure aggregates the examiner's record across all art units and describes historical dispositions, not predictions for individual applications.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    J Mitchell Curran's public record spans 3 art units (2157, 2161, 2169) within TC 2100. This pooled profile reports combined activity across all three units.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the art units?
    Allowance rates range from 63% to 76% across the three art units. The pooled rate of 66% reflects the aggregate of these variations and is not a prediction applicable to any specific application.
◈ 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 J Mitchell Curran 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: 141 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