Examiner Mary J Steelman has allowed 117 of 149 decided applications (79%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Mary J Steelman has disposed of 149 applications across two art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of those 149 decided applications, 117 were allowed and 32 were abandoned, resulting in an allowance rate of 79%. This rate reflects the examiner's public record pooled across both art units. The record encompasses a range of subject matter within the technology center's scope and provides a snapshot of historical dispositions. The figures presented are descriptions of past outcomes and are not predictions about any future application.
This profile aggregates data across multiple art units, producing a single allowance rate that pools all decided applications within the technology center. Aggregate figures describe historical dispositions and are not forecasts of outcomes in any specific case. When reviewing a pooled record, note that it represents a blend of different art units and application types. The allowance rate is calculated only from disposed (decided) applications, excluding pending filings.
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 software engineering, and error detection, correction, and monitoring.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 56 decided applications with an interview and 88 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Mary J Steelman 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: 149 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