LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/MATTHEW A BRADLEY
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Matthew A Bradley

TECH CENTER 2100 · 3 ART UNITS · 570 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2019
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 3 ART UNITS

Examiner Matthew A Bradley has allowed 494 of 570 decided applications (87%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

87% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2187 · 81%AU 2132 · 91%AU 2182 · 93%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Matthew A Bradley holds a public record of 570 disposed applications across three art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of these decided applications, 494 were allowed and 76 were abandoned, resulting in an allowance rate of 87%. The allowance rate varies across the three art units, ranging from 81% to 93%. This pooled figure represents an aggregate of the examiner's work across multiple art units and describes the historical record without prediction of outcomes in any individual case.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data from three separate art units, each of which may have distinct subject matter within TC 2100. The overall allowance rate of 87% describes past decisions on 570 disposed applications and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. When reviewing a pooled, cross-art-unit record, the reported range reflects variation among the art units; individual art-unit records are published separately for more targeted analysis.

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 2187
270 APPS · 81% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines computer-aided design (CAD).

81% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION220 / 50 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION24.7 moart unit avg 23.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY48 moart unit avg 36.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility28% · art unit 39%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)51%
§103 — Obviousness58% · art unit 77%
§112 — Written description & definiteness32%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW86%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW80%+6 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 57 decided applications with an interview and 213 without.

ART UNIT 2132
239 APPS · 91% ALLOWANCE

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

91% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION217 / 22 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION19.5 moart unit avg 27.4 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY30.9 moart unit avg 41 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility23% · art unit 21%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)54%
§103 — Obviousness29% · art unit 81%
§112 — Written description & definiteness41%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

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

WITH INTERVIEW92%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW91%+1 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 39 decided applications with an interview and 200 without.

ART UNIT 2182
61 APPS · 93% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines data-processing methods for specific functions, and processing data by its order or content.

93% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 72%
DISPOSITION57 / 4 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION22.8 moart unit avg 24.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY50.3 moart unit avg 37.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility33% · art unit 31%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)52%
§103 — Obviousness50% · art unit 76%
§112 — Written description & definiteness40%
// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Matthew A Bradley

  • What is Matthew A Bradley's overall allowance rate?
    87% across 570 disposed applications (494 allowed, 76 abandoned).
  • How many art units does this examiner work in?
    Three art units (2132, 2182, 2187) within TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary across art units?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 81% to 93% across the three art units. Per-art-unit figures are available separately.
  • Is this allowance rate a prediction for my application?
    No. The 87% figure describes the examiner's historical record on decided applications and is not a prediction of any specific case outcome.
◈ 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 Matthew A Bradley 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: 570 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