LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/MARK A GIARDINO JR
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER, ART UNIT, OR APPLICATION #
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Mark A Giardino Jr

TECH CENTER 2100 · 2 ART UNITS · 762 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 2 ART UNITS
86%vs 66% weighted peer average+20 pts

Examiner Mark A Giardino Jr has allowed 656 of 762 decided applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

allowed656abandoned106pending31· pending excluded from the rate
The weighted peer average (66%) is each art unit's average below, weighted by this examiner's applications in it (2 art units).
DATA UPDATED JULY 14, 2026
AU 2135 · 90%AU 2185 · 71%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Mark A Giardino Jr maintains a public record across 2 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across hundreds of decided applications, his allowance rate is 86%. The allowance rate—the percentage of applications that issued or were abandoned relative to all decided applications—ranges from 71% to 90% across these art units. This range reflects variation in the distribution of cases and outcomes within the examiner's pooled caseload, a common pattern in multi-unit records.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This record is pooled across multiple art units and represents historical outcomes only. An examiner's aggregate allowance rate describes past decisions and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Rates vary within the examiner's art units, and any single application's path depends on claim content, prior art, and prosecution responses—not on aggregate statistics. Read pooled figures as descriptive context, not as guidance for any individual case.

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 2135
646 APPS · 90% ALLOWANCE

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

90% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 66%
DISPOSITION552 / 63 / 31allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION15.3 moart unit avg 26.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY27.8 moart unit avg 41.7 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
REJECTION RATE = SHARE OF THIS EXAMINER'S APPLICATIONS THAT DREW ≥1 OFFICE-ACTION REJECTION IN WHICH THE GROUND APPEARS

Grounds can co-occur, so the four don't sum to 100%. The art-unit figure is the unweighted mean across examiners in the art unit; §102 and §112 carry no art-unit benchmark.

§101 — Subject-matter eligibility20%art unit 21%1 pt
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)80%no art-unit benchmark
§103 — Obviousness78%art unit 84%6 pts
§112 — Written description & definiteness40%no art-unit benchmark
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW91%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW89%+2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 233 decided applications with an interview and 382 without.

ART UNIT 2185
147 APPS · 71% ALLOWANCE
71% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 67%
DISPOSITION104 / 43 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.6 moart unit avg 21.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY46.2 moart unit avg 36.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
REJECTION RATE = SHARE OF THIS EXAMINER'S APPLICATIONS THAT DREW ≥1 OFFICE-ACTION REJECTION IN WHICH THE GROUND APPEARS

Grounds can co-occur, so the four don't sum to 100%. The art-unit figure is the unweighted mean across examiners in the art unit; §102 and §112 carry no art-unit benchmark.

§101 — Subject-matter eligibility36%art unit 19%+17 pts
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)49%no art-unit benchmark
§103 — Obviousness85%art unit 77%+8 pts
§112 — Written description & definiteness49%no art-unit benchmark
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW72%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW70%+2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 32 decided applications with an interview and 115 without.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Mark A Giardino Jr

  • What is Mark A Giardino Jr's overall allowance rate?
    86% across hundreds of decided applications pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    2 art units, both within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across his art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 71% to 90% across the examiner's art units.
◈ HOW LYNCH LLP CAN HELP

Where to go next.

Lynch LLP represents applicants in patent prosecution before the USPTO. These are general resources about the firm's services — not advice about this examiner or any specific application.

How the firm prosecutes patentsApplication drafting, office-action responses, and prosecution strategy before the USPTO.Appeals and PTAB practiceAppeals, inter partes review, and patent-owner defense before the PTAB.IP portfolio strategyHow a patent portfolio is sequenced and built over a multi-year horizon.Scheduling time with an attorneyFree and paid consultation options across the firm's attorneys.
◈ 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 Mark A Giardino Jr 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 July 14, 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: 793 applications.

Rejection rates. Each §-rate is the share of this examiner's applications that drew at least one office-action rejection in which that statutory ground appears; applications with no rejection on record are excluded, and because grounds can co-occur the four do not sum to 100%. The art-unit figure beside each is the unweighted mean of the per-examiner rates across the art unit, published for §101 and §103 only. Beside the overall allowance rate we show a benchmark: for a single-art-unit examiner it is exactly that art unit's average, labeled “art-unit average”; for an examiner spanning several art units it is the “weighted peer average” — the per-art-unit averages, weighted by this examiner's application count in each — labeled distinctly because it is a blended figure, not any single art unit's average. Both are built from the same per-art-unit averages the panels show.

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