Examiner Mark A Connolly has allowed 1,102 of 1,299 decided applications (85%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Mark A Connolly maintains a public record across four art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 1,299 disposed applications, he allowed 1,102, yielding an 85% allowance rate. His record spans art units 2115, 2116, 2117, and 2125. The allowance rate across these art units ranges from 79% to 88%. This pooled figure represents decided applications—allowed and abandoned combined—and excludes any pending matters from the calculation.
This profile aggregates Mark A Connolly's record across multiple art units within TC 2100. The pooled allowance rate describes his historical dispositions and is not a prediction about any specific application. Because different art units cover different subject matter and receive different application volumes, the aggregate figure masks variation; the range (79% to 88%) illustrates that breadth. Pooled statistics describe past outcomes only.
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 148 decided applications with an interview and 783 without.
Primarily examines control or regulating systems.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 40 decided applications with an interview and 136 without.
Primarily examines control or regulating systems.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 26 decided applications with an interview and 117 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Based on 49 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Mark A Connolly 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: 1,356 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