Examiner Malcolm Cribbs has allowed 84 of 92 decided applications (91%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Malcolm Cribbs maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 92 disposed applications, he has allowed 84 and abandoned 8, corresponding to an allowance rate of 91% over the decided pool. His record spans a single art unit. This pooled figure reflects outcomes across all applications in his record within TC 2100 and does not forecast the disposition of any particular application.
This pooled record aggregates all decided applications across Examiner Cribbs's art units. The 91% allowance rate describes past outcomes on 92 disposed applications and is a historical statistic only—not a prediction for any individual case. Pooled figures mask variation across different art units and technology areas. Review of art-unit-specific data, if available, may provide more focused context for particular subject matter.
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 control or regulating systems, and electric power networks.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 28 decided applications with an interview and 64 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Malcolm Cribbs 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: 92 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