LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Justin C Mikowski

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 194 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAY 2022
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Justin C Mikowski has allowed 155 of 194 decided applications (80%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

80% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2129 · 85%AU 2128 · 54%AU 2148 · 79%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Justin C Mikowski maintains a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His pooled allowance rate is 80%, calculated over 194 disposed applications (155 allowed, 39 abandoned). Allowance rates across the art units range from 54% to 85%. This aggregate record reflects the examiner's combined output across multiple art-unit assignments and represents decisions already rendered; it is not predictive of outcomes on any individual application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data across multiple art units, yielding an overall allowance rate that describes past dispositions in aggregate. The range reflects variation in allowance rates among the examiner's assigned art units. These figures are historical summaries and do not forecast the result of any specific application. The aggregate rate masks differences between art units; detailed per-art-unit records are available separately and may differ materially from the pooled figure.

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 2129
142 APPS · 85% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

85% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION121 / 21 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION26.8 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY42.7 moart unit avg 42.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility81% · art unit 63%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)92%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness60%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW91%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW56%+35 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 117 decided applications with an interview and 25 without.

ART UNIT 2128
28 APPS · 54% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines machine learning, and neural-network / biological-model computing.

54% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 53%
DISPOSITION15 / 13 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29.4 moart unit avg 30 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.6 moart unit avg 46.5 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility86% · art unit 65%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)96%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 84%
§112 — Written description & definiteness54%

Based on 28 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

ART UNIT 2148
24 APPS · 79% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

79% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION19 / 5 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30.4 moart unit avg 29.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY40.5 moart unit avg 42.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility77% · art unit 70%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)85%
§103 — Obviousness85% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness23%

Based on 24 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Justin C Mikowski

  • What is Justin C Mikowski's overall allowance rate?
    80% over 194 disposed applications (155 allowed, 39 abandoned) pooled across all assigned art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    Three art units (2128, 2129, 2148) within TC 2100.
  • What is the range of allowance rates across the art units?
    Allowance rates range from 54% to 85% across the art units with substantial records.
  • Does the pooled rate predict my application's outcome?
    No. The pooled rate is a historical aggregate and is not a prediction for any specific application. Outcomes may vary by art unit and application-specific facts.
◈ 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 Justin C Mikowski 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: 194 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