Examiner Matthew D Sandifer has allowed 705 of 840 decided applications (84%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Matthew D Sandifer has a public record of 864 total applications across 4 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Of 840 disposed applications, 705 were allowed, yielding an 84% allowance rate. The examiner's work spans multiple art units in TC 2100, with allowance rates ranging from 65% to 98% across these units. This pooled figure aggregates decisions made across the art units and reflects the overall historical record without indicating outcomes for any individual pending application.
This pooled record combines data from multiple art units within TC 2100 and represents a historical aggregate. The 84% allowance rate describes past decisions on 840 disposed applications and is not a prediction of how any specific application will be examined. Allowance rates vary across individual art units (65% to 98%), and applicants are encouraged to consult per-art-unit data when available for more granular context.
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 data-processing methods for specific functions, and processing data by its order or content.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 286 decided applications with an interview and 190 without.
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 92 decided applications with an interview and 120 without.
Primarily examines information retrieval and database structures.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 65 decided applications with an interview and 38 without.
Primarily examines program control and execution.
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 Matthew D Sandifer 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: 864 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