LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/MARZIA T MONTY
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Marzia T Monty

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 184 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Marzia T Monty has allowed 132 of 184 decided applications (72%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

72% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2117 · 68%AU 2118 · 77%AU 2126 · 66%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Examiner Marzia T Monty maintains a public record across 3 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 184 disposed applications, 132 were allowed, yielding an overall allowance rate of 72%. The allowance rate ranges from 66% to 77% across these art units. This pooled figure represents the examiner's decided applications across multiple art units and reflects historical dispositions, not predictions about any specific application.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

A pooled record aggregates data from multiple art units and presents an overall allowance rate as a historical summary. The 72% figure describes past dispositions across all art units combined and does not predict the outcome of any individual application. Range variation across art units reflects differences in subject matter and application complexity within TC 2100. Pooled data provides context for the examiner's record but does not forecast results in any particular 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 2117
84 APPS · 68% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines control or regulating systems.

68% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 74%
DISPOSITION43 / 20 / 21allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.1 moart unit avg 20.2 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY43.4 moart unit avg 33.2 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility57% · art unit 32%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)62%
§103 — Obviousness87% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness75%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW87%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW50%+37 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 31 decided applications with an interview and 32 without.

ART UNIT 2118
83 APPS · 77% ALLOWANCE
77% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 73%
DISPOSITION64 / 19 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.2 moart unit avg 22.1 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.9 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility39% · art unit 30%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)55%
§103 — Obviousness96% · art unit 82%
§112 — Written description & definiteness70%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW92%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW65%+27 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 37 decided applications with an interview and 46 without.

ART UNIT 2126
38 APPS · 66% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

66% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 63%
DISPOSITION25 / 13 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.1 moart unit avg 29.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY35.5 moart unit avg 44.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility36% · art unit 53%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)48%
§103 — Obviousness94% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness67%

Based on 38 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Marzia T Monty

  • What is Examiner Monty's overall allowance rate?
    The overall allowance rate is 72%, based on 132 allowed applications out of 184 disposed applications pooled across all art units.
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    The examiner's record spans 3 art units (2117, 2118, 2126) within Technology Center 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 66% to 77% across these art units. This page presents the pooled overall rate; per-art-unit detail is available separately.
◈ 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 Marzia T Monty 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: 205 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