LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/LARRY T MACKALL
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Larry T Mackall

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 872 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 Larry T Mackall has allowed 737 of 872 decided applications (85%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

85% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2139 · 95%AU 2131 · 83%AU 2189 · 66%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Larry T Mackall has a pooled allowance rate of 85% across 872 disposed applications in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). His public record spans three art units: 2131, 2139, and 2189. Of the 908 total applications on record, 737 were allowed and 135 were abandoned. The allowance rate varies across his art units, ranging from 66% to 95%. This pooled figure aggregates outcomes across all three units and reflects historical disposition data only.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record combines dispositions across multiple art units into a single aggregate figure. The 85% allowance rate represents past outcomes across all three art units combined and is not a prediction for any specific application. The range (66% to 95%) shows variation among the individual art units but does not identify which rate applies to which unit. Pooled data describes the examiner's overall record; individual application outcomes depend on claim scope, prior art, and examination.

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 2139
416 APPS · 95% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

95% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION362 / 18 / 36allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION14.9 moart unit avg 24 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY23.8 moart unit avg 37.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility19% · art unit 22%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)85%
§103 — Obviousness77% · art unit 80%
§112 — Written description & definiteness45%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW96%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW95%+1 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 96 decided applications with an interview and 284 without.

ART UNIT 2131
289 APPS · 83% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines input/output (I/O) data transfer, and memory access and allocation.

83% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 56%
DISPOSITION241 / 48 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION17.3 moart unit avg 26.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY36.2 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20% · art unit 29%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)78%
§103 — Obviousness85% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness34%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW96%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW81%+15 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 47 decided applications with an interview and 242 without.

ART UNIT 2189
203 APPS · 66% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

66% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 77%
DISPOSITION134 / 69 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25 moart unit avg 26.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.8 moart unit avg 39 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility35% · art unit 44%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)59%
§103 — Obviousness79% · art unit 72%
§112 — Written description & definiteness12%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW78%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW63%+15 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 37 decided applications with an interview and 166 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Larry T Mackall

  • What is Larry T Mackall's overall allowance rate?
    His pooled allowance rate is 85%, based on 872 disposed applications (737 allowed, 135 abandoned) across all art units in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Mackall has a public record spanning three art units: 2131, 2139, and 2189, all within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across his art units?
    Yes. Allowance rates across his art units range from 66% to 95%. This pooled record does not assign specific rates to specific units.
  • What does this pooled record mean for my application?
    The pooled figures describe Mackall's past dispositions and are not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Allowance depends on the claims, prior art, and examination of the individual case.
◈ 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 Larry T Mackall 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: 908 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