Examiner Kimberly N Mclean Mayo has allowed 161 of 182 decided applications (88%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Kimberly N Mclean Mayo has a public record of 182 disposed applications across 1 art unit in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of those decided applications, 161 were allowed and 21 were abandoned, yielding an allowance rate of 88%. This figure represents applications that received a final decision—either allowance or abandonment—and does not include any pending applications. The record spans a single art unit within TC 2100.
This pooled record aggregates the examiner's work across all assigned art units and reflects historical outcomes on applications that reached final disposition. The allowance rate describes what occurred in the past across the entire portfolio and is not a prediction of how any specific future application will be examined or decided. Aggregate statistics describe a population of past cases, not the prospects of individual filings.
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.
Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 22 decided applications with an interview and 160 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Kimberly N Mclean Mayo 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: 182 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