LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Mario M Velez-Lopez

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 454 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION MAY 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Mario M Velez-Lopez has allowed 345 of 454 decided applications (76%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

76% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2144 · 77%AU 2118 · 84%AU 2178 · 58%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Mario M Velez-Lopez has a public record spanning three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 454 disposed applications, he allowed 345, yielding an overall allowance rate of 76%. The allowance rate ranges from 58% to 84% across these art units, reflecting variation in the composition and outcomes of applications handled in each unit. This pooled figure aggregates the examiner's work across all three art units and describes his historical record of decisions on decided applications.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled, cross-art-unit record aggregates applications and dispositions from multiple art units into a single statistical snapshot. The overall allowance rate reflects the proportion of allowed applications among all decided cases, regardless of art unit. This aggregated figure describes past outcomes and is not a prediction of any specific application's fate. Individual art units may show different allowance rates; the range shown here reflects that variation across the examiner's portfolio.

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 2144
292 APPS · 77% ALLOWANCE
77% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 58%
DISPOSITION226 / 66 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.7 moart unit avg 27.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.3 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility38% · art unit 45%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)58%
§103 — Obviousness91% · art unit 92%
§112 — Written description & definiteness28%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW80%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW76%+4 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 103 decided applications with an interview and 189 without.

ART UNIT 2118
136 APPS · 84% ALLOWANCE
84% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION81 / 15 / 40allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23 moart unit avg 22.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY37.9 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility36% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)80%
§103 — Obviousness92% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness37%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW82%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW86%-4 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 39 decided applications with an interview and 57 without.

ART UNIT 2178
66 APPS · 58% ALLOWANCE
58% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 54%
DISPOSITION38 / 28 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION25.9 moart unit avg 25.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY40.5 moart unit avg 41.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility39% · art unit 36%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)38%
§103 — Obviousness95% · art unit 79%
§112 — Written description & definiteness20%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Mario M Velez-Lopez

  • What is Mario M Velez-Lopez's overall allowance rate?
    76% across 454 disposed applications pooled across all art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Three art units: 2118, 2144, and 2178.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 58% to 84% across the examiner's art units, indicating variation in historical outcomes by unit.
  • What does this pooled record mean for my application?
    This record describes past outcomes on decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Allowance rates are correlational data describing historical dispositions, not causal indicators of future results.
◈ 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 Mario M Velez-Lopez 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: 494 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